THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 


Mrs.  William  B.  Monroe 


1 

THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 


^ 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW 

EDITED  BY  THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Volume  LXV]  [Number  1 

Whole  Number  156 


THE    SOVEREIGN    COUNCIL 
OF  NEW  FRANCE 

A  Study  in  Canadian  Constitutional  History 


BY 

RAYMOND  DU  BOIS  CAHALL,  PH.D. 

One-time  Fellow  in  Modern  European  History 

Columbia  University 

Acting  Assistant  Professor  of  European  History  and  Government 
Miami  University 


$)ork 
COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY 

LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  AGENTS 

LONDON  :  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  LTD 

1915 


COPYRIGHT,  1915 

BY 
RAYMOND   DU   BOIS   CAHALL 


College 
Library 


': 


TO 
MY  MOTHER 


WHOSE   SUPPORT  AND   ENCOURAGEMENT 

MADE  POSSIBLE  THIS   STUDY 
IT  IS  AFFECTIONATELY  DEDICATED 


1043940 


PREFACE 

IN  the  summer  of  1911,  Professor  Carlton  Hayes,  while 
at  the  University  of  Chicago,  called  my  attention  to  the 
dearth  of  information  about  the  government  of  Canada 
under  French  rule.  In  the  present  study,  I  have  confined 
myself  to  the  Sovereign  Council  and  the  officials  con- 
nected with  it,  in  the  hope  that  similar  studies  will  be 
written  by  others  dealing  with  the  Governor,  the  Intend- 
ant,  and  the  inferior  courts  of  New  France.  This  mono- 
graph is  designed  by  its  copious  footnotes  in  the  original 
and  by  frequent  references  to  sources  to  save  the  future 
historians  of  Canada  the  trouble  of  sifting  a  large  mass 
of  material. 

The  core  of  the  work  consists  of  the  last  four  chapters, 
which  treat  of  the  organization,  procedure,  functions,  and 
actual  achievements  of  the  Sovereign  Council.  The  ear- 
lier chapters  are  designed  to  describe  the  events  which 
increased  or  diminished  the  power  of  the  Council  and  to 
acquaint  the  reader  with  the  personality  of  the  actors. 
A  disproportionate  amount  of  space  is  given  to  the  two 
administrations  of  Frontenac,  because  during  those  years 
the  disputes  of  greatest  significance  occurred.  Owing 
to  the  number  of  these,  several  cases  have  been  relegated 
to  appendices. 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  take  this  opportunity 
to  thank  those  who  have  shown  interest  in  this  modest 
enterprise.  I  am  grateful  to  Professor  James  Harvey 
Robinson  for  his  careful  revision  of  the  proof,  to  Profes- 
sor James  T.  Shotwell  for  reading  portions  of  the  manu- 
71  7 


8  PREFACE  [S 

script,  and  to  Professor  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman  for  co- 
operating in  the  publication.  I  am  deeply  indebted  to 
Professor  Herbert  L.  Osgood  of  Columbia  University 
and  Professor  W.  B.  Munro  of  Harvard  University  for 
the  most  helpful  criticisms.  Among  several  kind  librar- 
ians and  archivists,  my  thanks  are  especially  due  to  Dr. 
A.  G.  Doughty,  Dominion  Archivist,  and  Mr.  Parker, 
Keeper  of  Manuscripts  in  the  Archives  at  Ottawa. 
Finally  I  wish  to  express  my  deep  gratitude  to  Mrs. 
William  F.  Pierce  of  Gambier,  Ohio,  for  the  important 
part  which  she  has  had  in  the  revision  of  the  manuscript. 

R.  D.  B.  C. 
MIAMI  UNIVERSITY,  January  2, 1915. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

Importance  of  the  Sovereign  Council  in  Canadian  history 13 

The  Council  of  1647 14 

Representative  character  of  the  Council  of  1648 15 

Its  wide  participation  in  administration    .    .        16 

King  dissatisfied  with  Governor's  administration  of  justice  ....  17 

With  his  policy  towards  the  Indians                                    18 

With  the  Company  of  One  Hundred  Associates IQ 

King  resumes  Colony             .    .  .  20 

Sovereign  Council  established  in  1663 21 

Not  a  representative  assembly 22 

Triumph  of  the  ecclesiastics 22 

First  measures  of  the  Council          23 

Action  against  Peronne  Dumesnil 24 

Dissension  over  election  and  installation  of  a  Syndic  of  Quebec  .    .  26 

Unconstitutional  removal  of  Councillors  by  M6sy 29 

Company  of  the  West  Indies  administers  New  France 34 

Slight  influence  upon  the  Council  . .  36 

Reorganization,  and  dominance  of  Talon.  .       36 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT 

Frontenac's  inaugural  address 43 

His  great  influence 44 

Trial  of  his  enemy,  Jean  Perrot 45 

Also  of  the  Abbe  Fenelon 46 

Loses  control  of  the  Council 51 

Councillors  obtain  royal  commissions 51 

Intendant  supplants  Governor  as  President  of  the  Council 52 

The  Council  and  the  ecclesiastics,  honors  in  church 52 

The  Rolland  case 55 

Frontenac  attempts  to  retain  title  of  President  ...       58 

Banishes  recalcitrant  Councillors 63 

Is  denied  title  by  Council,  and  by  King 65 

9l  o 


10  CONTENTS  [I0 

P\GE 

Governor  replaced  by  Dean  as  Vice-President  of  Council 68 

Council  attempts  to  include  the  Governor  in  its  jurisdiction.    ...  69 

Frontenac  vs.  Villeray 69 

Case  of  Vaultier 70 

Mathieu  Damours .  71 

Drastic  policy  of  the  Council  towards  the  Coureurs  de  Bois  ....  72 

Council  asserts  jurisdiction  beyond  the  established  courts 74 

Attempts  to  cut  off  appeals  to  the  King 75 

Regulates  coinage  without  Governor's  advice 76 

Important  measure  taken  without  Governor  and  Intendant  annulled 

by  the  King 80 

Peaceful  days  for  the  Council 81 

Return  of  Frontenac,  honors  of  his  reception 84 

Trial  of  Mareuil,  delivered  from  Council's  jurisdiction  by  Frontenac.  85 

Death  of  Frontenac 93 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 
Ecclesiastical  influence,  conflict  of  ordinance  and  mandate  in  the 

Gosselin  case 95 

Partiality  towards  Coureurs  de  Bois,  the  De  Louvigny  case.    ...      97 

Change  of  name  to  Superior  Council 102 

Councillors  in  trade-evil  effects 102 

Attempt  to  break  wheat  monopoly  in  absence  of  Governor  and 

Intendant,  the  Council  rebuked 107 

Attempt  of  the  Council  to  judge  a  grave  ecclesiastical  dispute  in  1727.  no 
Action  of  the  Governor  annulling  its  decrees  and  ordering  authori- 
ties not  to  receive  them 114 

Intendant  maintains  supremacy  of  the  Council  in  affairs  of  justice  .    115 

Banishment  of  Councillors .    116 

Intendant  unsupported  at  French  court 116 

Submission  of  the  Council ,.». 117 

The  last  days  of  the  Superior  Council 120 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

Personnel . 122 

Appointment 125 

Qualifications 130 

Tenure  of  office ....  132 

Emoluments,  salaries,  fees,  pensions 133 

Honors  and  privileges 138 

The  Governor  and  the  Council 144 

The  Intendant 148 


n]  CONTENTS  u 

FAGB 

The  Bishop 151 

The  First  Councillor 154 

The  Attorney-General 155 

Other  officers 159 

CHAPTER  V 
METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

Time  of  sessions 161 

Place  of  sessions 162 

Quorum 166 

Ceremonial 167 

Judicial  procedure 170 

The  committee  system 174 

Advantages 175 

Disadvantages 176 

Records 178 

Catalogues  and  archives 179 

Promulgation  of  decrees 181 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

Separation  of  powers  not  part  of  the  French  government 184 

The  legislative  power  of  the  Council 185 

Registration  unnecessary  to  legalize  the  great  French  ordinances  .  186 

Necessary  for  other  royal  laws 189 

Necessary  for  deeds,  commissions,  etc 190 

King  holds  it  to  be  necessary 191 

The  Council  as  an  administrative  body.    .       192 

The  power  to  determine  expenditure 194 

To  regulate  the  trade  with  the  Indians 196 

The  trade  between  French  and  Canadians 198 

The  power  to  make  police  regulations  governing  good  order,  pub- 
lic health,  and  safety 198 

Gradual  loss  of  this  power 199 

Right  to  erect  courts 202 

Supervision  of  lower  courts    .    -       203 

The  Council  as  an  executive  body 205 

The  Canadian  court  system       207 

Checks  upon  the  Council's  judicial  power 211 

Limited  by  delegation  of  power  to  Intendant 212 

By  appeals  to  France 214 


12  CONTENTS  [i2 

PACK 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  AND  JUDICIAL  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

Failure  to  effect  wider  cultivation  of  the  soil 216 

Measures  encouraging  agricultute 218 

Against  monopoly  prices  of  seed  wheat.                  219 

Facilitating  the  sale  of  crops.                      .  220 

The  Council  opens  the  Indian  trade  to  all 223 

Number  of  Coureurs  de  Bois  cut  down ...  225 

Restrictive  policy  towards  French  merchants,  their  profits  fixed  by 

the  Council                                             226 

Atlantic  trade  opened  to  Canadians 230 

French  merchants  excluded  from  retail  and  Indian  trade 231 

Markets  established         232 

Currency  measures .       234 

Prices  fixed  upon  recommendation  of  an  assembly  of  citizens  .    ,    .  235 

Great  difficulty  in  having  roads  built  and  streets  made  passable  .  237 

Moderate  success  in  cleaning  up  Quebec 240 

Measures  against  green  and  diseased  meats .       .  243 

Failure  to  obtain  pure  water  supply  or  establish  system  of  quarantine.  243 

Measures  aimed  at  preventing  fires 245 

Failure  to  establish  an  effective  fire-fighting  system 247 

The  prevention  of  crime,  measures  against  beggars 248 

System  of  poor  relief 249 

Measures  against  runaway  servants 250 

Nature  of  crimes  and  the  need  of  drastic  repressive  measures  .    .    .  252 

Criminal  cases  quickly  dispatched 254 

Council  more  merciful  than  lower  courts 254 

Terrible  sentences  sometimes  meted  out 256 

Civil  justice  administered  cheaply  and  without  long  delays    ....  259 

CHAPTER  VIII 

APPENDICES  TO  CHAPTER  II 261 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 271 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

THE  picturesque  history  of  Canada,  dealing  with  the 
deeds  of  hardy  adventurers  in  the  depths  of  the  forest- 
clad  interior  or  on  the  outskirts  of  Dutch  and  English 
settlement,  has  not  been  neglected.  With  the  Governor 
of  New  France  we  are  accustomed  to  associate  the  war 
expedition,  the  pipe  of  peace,  and  the  courtly  ceremonies 
of  the  Chateau  St.  Louis,  that  miniature  Versailles.  In 
the  same  way  our  idea  of  the  Intendant  is  colored  by 
the  turbulent  quarrels  into  which  a  few  Intendants  were 
drawn,  and  by  the  spectacular  corruption  and  magnificence 
which  constituted  the  crime  of  the  unspeakable  Bigot 
alone.  Owing  to  the  love  of  the  thrilling  and  the  pictur- 
esque, the  administrative  side  of  Canadian  history  has 
hitherto  been  inadequately  presented.  It  remains  to  be 
shown  that  the  Governor  and  Intendant  spent  their  time  in 
other  occupations  than  Indian  fighting  or  quarreling  with 
each  other ;  that  they  shared  in  the  prosaic  routine  of  the 
domestic  government  of  Canada :  and  that,  in  this  capa- 
city, they  were  associated  together  in  an  institution  which 
has  heretofore  almost  escaped  the  attention  of  the  histor- 
ian. Since  this  institution  of  which  they  were  members 
labored  quite  as  much  as  they  for  the  preservation  of 
property  and  the  maintenance  of  good  order,  no  consti- 
tutional history  of  New  France  should  any  longer  be 
silent  as  to  the  history  and  functions  of  the  Sovereign 
Council  of  Quebec. 

This  Council  functioned  from  1663  until  the  English 
Conquest  but  was  especially  active  in  administrative  and 
13]  u 


I4          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [I4 

judicial  achievement  during  the  seventeenth  century. 
Before  taking  up  the  more  interesting  work  of  analyzing 
its  procedure  and  functions,  and  estimating  its  value  to 
Canada,  I  shall  trace  the  history  of  its  formation,  grow- 
ing importance,  and  decline. 

The  reader  who  is  tempted  to  conclude  from  these  nar- 
rative chapters  that  struggles  for  personal  power  and 
broader  conciliar  jurisdiction  made  up  the  life  of  the 
Council,  has  only  to  turn  to  the  later  chapters  to  realize 
his  mistake ;  the  achievements  there  chronicled  could 
only  result  from  scores  of  meetings  undisturbed  by  any 
dispute.  It  is  with  the  warning  not  to  take  the  constitu- 
tional struggles  to  be  described  as  typical  of  the  every- 
day work  of  the  Council,  that  the  opening  chapters  are 
introduced. 

The  Sovereign  Council  of  New  France  was  the  third 
form  of  Council  given  to  the  Colony.  Its  predecessors 
were  designed  both  to  aid  and  check  the  Governor.  Long 
before  an  Intendant  arrived  in  Canada,  the  French  gov- 
ernment had  placed  a  check  upon  the  autocratic  tenden- 
cies of  the  colonial  Governor,  by  associating  with  him 
the  Superior  of  the  Jesuits  and  the  local  governor  of 
Montreal.  This  action  was  the  result  of  a  careful  inves- 
tigation of  representations  made  by  the  chief  inhabitants 
of  Canada  and  by  the  directors  of  the  Company  of  One 
Hundred  Associates.  The  Royal  Regulation  of  March 
27,  1647,  provided  that  a  Council  of  three,  or  their 
deputies,  should  supervise  the  detailed  administration  of 
the  colony  and  see  that  the  duties  of  all  special  officers 
were  properly  performed,  without  using  their  offices 
for  their  own  private  benefit.  The  Council  was  given 
wide  appointive  powers  and  was  also  to  serve  as  an 
auditing  board.  Syndics,  that  is,  persons  who  looked 
after  the  business  interests  of  a  city,  were  to  be  elected 


I5] 


THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY 


each  year  in  Quebec,  Montreal,  and  Three  Rivers,  and 
were  to  appear  in  the  Council  whenever  their  affairs  de- 
manded consideration.1 

But  the  inhabitants  of  Canada  desired  some  representa- 
tion in  the  Council  and  they  objected  to  the  financial 
burden  imposed  upon  them.  Accordingly  on  March  5, 
1648,  a  Royal  Warrant  was  issued  altering  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Council.2  Thenceforth  it  was  ordinarily  to 
consist  of  the  Governor,  the  Superior  of  the  Jesuits,  - 
until  the  arrival  of  a  bishop  in  Canada  -  and  the 
retiring  Governor.  In  addition  there  were  to  be  two 
inhabitants  elected  every  three  years  by  these  officers 
and  by  the  syndics  of  Quebec,  Montreal,  and  Three  Rivers. 
Where  the  Governor  was  retained  for  a  second  term  of 
three  years,  three  inhabitants  might  be  elected  in  this 
manner  to  complete  the  number  of  five.  Although  the 
document  named  the  inhabitants  who  were  to  serve  for 
the  first  three  years,  it  is  probable  that  at  the  first  election 
in  1651  the  three  syndics,  who  were  themselves  elected 
by  the  people,  elected  their  nominees,  since  they  cast 
three  out  of  the  five  votes.  Thus  was  a  popular  element 
introduced  into  the  early  government  of  Canada. 

The  Warrant  of  1648  granted  wide  powers  to  the  Coun- 
cil, which  was  to  have  the  disbursement  of  the  public 
funds,  the  regulation  of  the  police,  the  right  to  grant  or 
refuse  permission  to  syndics,  attorneys,  etc.,  to  borrow 
money,  and  the  right  to  appoint  the  captains  of  the  vol- 
unteers.3 

1  Collection  Moreau  de  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iii,  p.  169,  et  seq. 

1  La  Chesnaye  says  in  1676  that  this  action  was  taken  in  consequence 
of  mutual  complaints  of  Governor  Avaugour  and  various  families. 
Collection  de  Manuscrits  de  Nouvelle  France,  vol.  i,  p.  250. 

*  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  i,  p.  184,  et  seq.  For  para- 
phrases of  the  decrees  establishing  the  Councils  of  1647  and  1648  in 
English,  see  A.  Shortt  and  A.  G.  Doughty,  Canada  and  its  Provinces, 
vol.  i,  p.  328,  et  seq. 


!6          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

The  records  of  this  Council  have  been  lost  but  we  have 
various  accounts  of  its  activity.1  La  Chesnaye,  for 
example,  tells  us  how  the  Council  was  installed  and  began 
its  work.  As  an  administrative  body,  it  sent  out  ambas- 
sadors, decided  peace  and  war  and  issued  ordinances.2 
As  a  judicial  body,  it  entertained  appeals  from  the  local 
court  of  Three  Rivers  and  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
of  the  Sulpitians  at  Montreal.  From  its  judgments 
appeal  might  be  carried  to  the  Parlement  of  Rouen.3 

The  historian  Charlevoix,  not  knowing  how  this  Coun- 
cil was  constituted,  describes  it  as  an  informal  body, 
called  upon  exceptional  occasions  to  advise  the  Governor. 
"But,"  he  observes,  "this  Council  was  not  permanent: 
the  Governor  General  established  it  by  virtue  of  the  power 
conferred  on  him  by  the  king,  and  changed  it  as  he  saw 
fit  ",4  This  description  is  not  accurate.  The  Council 
functioned  more  widely,  and  was  more  stable  in  its  or- 
ganization than  Charlevoix  indicates.  It  met  in  the 
absence  of  the  Governor.5  It  participated  in  the  most 

'A  few  scanty  records  are  found  in  Coll.  de  Man.  de  Nouv.  fr.,  vol. 
i,  p.  128.  The  record  for  a  meeting  on  June  20,  1651,  reads  as  follows: 
"  Le  Conseil  assemble  a  neuf  heures  du  matin  ou  ont  assiste  Mon.  le 
Gouverneur,  le  Rev.  Pere  Superieur,  Messieurs  de  Godefroy  et  Mencil." 

'For  the  Council's  share  in  the  negotiations  of  1651  with  New  Eng- 
land, see  Coll.  de  Man.  de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  pp.  127-129. 

3  La  Tour's  description  of  this  Council  tallies  with  references  to  it  in 
Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souverain.  See  La  Tour, 
Mhnoire  de  la  Vie  de  M.  de  Laval,  book  vii.  On  the  other  hand, 
Kingsford,  History  of  Canada,  vol.  i,  p.  191,  says  "with  appeal  to  the 
King  alone." 

*  Charlevoix,  History  of  France  (Shea's  edition),  vol.  i,  p.  67. 

5  The  Sieur  de  la  Tesserie  is  spoken  of  as  "  cedevant  .  .  .  chef  du 
Conseil  en  1'absence  de  Monsieur  d'Avaugour."  Jugements  et  Delib., 
vol.  i,  p.  281. 


I7]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  ^ 

important  business  of  government.1  In  fact  its  partici- 
pation was  deemed  to  be  so  necessary  to  the  legality  of  an 
act,  that  a  grant  of  trading  privileges  made  without  it 
was  declared  by  its  successor,  the  Sovereign  Council,  to 
be  null  and  void.2  The  same  organization  of  the  Coun- 
cil was  maintained  until  its  abolition  in  1663.  Argenson, 
the  third  Governor  during  its  existence,  "  preserved  the 
Council  as  it  was  established  ".3  Nor  is  there  any  evi- 
dence until  1662,  when  Avaugour  changed  the  personnel 
of  his  Council,  that  tenure  of  office  was  precarious.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Royal  Warrant  of  1648  others  than  the 
Governor  shared  the  power  of  appointing  Councillors. 
Arbitrary  removal  by  the  Governor  was  thus  in  some 
measure  provided  against.  There  is  little  doubt  that  the 
Governor  upon  occasion  dominated  the  Council,  neg- 
lected to  consult  it  and  arrogated  to  himself  its  judicial 
powers,4  but  nevertheless  the  "  ancien  conseil"  could 
function  and  did  function  independently  of  him  and  in 
his  absence.5  It  was  not  merely  a  Governor's  Council. 

JThe  treaty  with  the  merchants  of  Rouen  in  1660  to  supply  the  colony 
at  a  fixed  profit  was  made  "  a  la  priere  du  Gouverneur  [et]  du  Conseil 
du  pais."  Memoir  of  La  Chesnaye,  Coll.  de  Man,  de  Nouv.  fr.,  vol.  i, 
p.  251. 

* "  Le  diet  Sieur  Davaugour  de  son  authorite  n'a  pu  faire  le  diet 
traicte  de  ferme  dont  est  question  sans  1'advis  du  Conseil  estably  par  le 
Roy  a  Quebecq."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  10-12. 

3  Coll.  de  Man.  de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  p.  251. 

4Charlevoix,  vol.  i,  p.  371,  says  that  Avaugour  had  acquired  a  reputa- 
tion for  wise  judgments  based  upon  natural  equity  rather  than  upon  law. 

5  A  record  of  January,  1664,  in  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  94,  is 
interesting:  "  II  est  bien  vray  que  1'este  dernier  apres  le  depart  dufsieur 
Davaugour  ceux  qui  tenoient  le  Conseil  sous  1'authorite  du  sieur  de  la 
Tesserie  avoient  faict  un  tarif  [allowing  French  merchants  50  per  cent 
profit]  sans  appeler  aucun  des  diets  merchands."  This  is  perhaps  an 
exceptional  case.  Avaugour  was  on  his  way  to  France,  and  the  new 
government  had  not  yet  been  formed. 


jg          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Its  members  were  bound  directly  to  each  other,  not 
through  him.  It  was  not  ambitious  and  yet  it  played  a 
considerable  part  between  1648  and  1663. 

Shortly  after  Louis  XIV  began  his  personal  reign, 
agitation  was  started  for  a  second  change  in  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Council.  There  were  several  reasons  on 
the  King's  part  for  taking  such  action.  In  the  first  place, 
he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  administration  of  justice  in 
the  colony.  In  his  secret  instructions  to  Gaudais,  who 
was  sent  out  to  Quebec  to  help  install  the  new  Council 
and  watch  its  workings  and  the  attitude  of  the  people 
towards  it,  the  minister  said :  "  Up  to  the  present  there 
has  been  in  that  colony  no  regular  system  of  justice  the 
authority  of  which  was  universally  recognized,  and 
through  the  weakness  of  character  of  those  who  were 
charged  with  rendering  justice,  the  judgments  which 
were  pronounced  were  generally  unexecuted.  Therefore, 
His  Majesty  resolved  some  time  ago  to  create  a  Sover- 
eign Council  in  the  said  country  "." 

The  Governor  in  his  individual  capacity  had  drawn  to 
himself  many  judicial  powers  to  the  detriment  of  the 
Council.  During  Avaugour's  administration  the  Gover- 
nor rather  than  his  Council  became  the  legal  court  of 
appeals;  for  in  1651,  the  Company  of  New  France  had 
decided  that  ordinary  justice  should  be  administered 
under  the  headship  of  a  Grand  Senechal,  in  first  instance 
by  a  lieutenant-general,  and,  upon  appeal,  by  the  Gover- 
nor General,  who  was  empowered  by  His  Majesty  to 
judge  finally.2  In  1659  the  King  ordered  resort  in  first 
instance  for  all  civil,  criminal,  and  police  actions  demand- 
ing prompt  and  exemplary  punishment,  to  be  had  to  the 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  vol.  iii,  p.  26. 

*Doutre  et  Lareau,  Le  Droit  Civil  Canadien,  vol.  i,  p.  38. 


I9]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  ig 

local  judges  established  by  the  Company,  and  upon 
appeal  to  the  Governor1.  There  were  many  enemies 
of  the  Governor  to  point  out  the  abuses  of  this  system 
and  to  influence  the  King  to  create  as  supreme  court  of 
appeals  a  body  of  which  the  Governor  should  be  but  one, 
with  the  vote  of  an  ordinary  member. 

In  the  second  place,  the  King  was  influenced  by  the 
ecclesiastics.  Among  those  who  called  loudest  for  a 
change  and  for  the  recall  of  Governor  Avaugour  were 
Bishop  Laval  and  the  Jesuits2,  and  the  chief  cause  for 
these  demands  was  the  question  of  the  traffic  in  liquor 
with  the  Indians.  Hitherto  the  ecclesiastical  power 
had  dominated  the  colony,  but  in  1661  the  Governor, 
partly  by  chance,  partly  by  intention,  found  himself  in 
opposition  to  the  ecclesiastics  upon  the  matter  of  barter- 
ing brandy  for  skins.  On  May  5,  1660,  the  Bishop  had 
excommunicated  those  who  persisted  in  the  sale  of  liquor 
to  the  Indians3.  He  had  obtained  a  law  punishing  such 
sales  with  death.  Shortly  after  he  assumed  control 
Avaugour  had  been  forced  to  shoot  two  men  and  flog 
another  for  transgressing  this  law 4.  But  when  a  woman 
was  caught  in  such  traffic  and  was  protected  by  the  Jes- 
uits, the  Governor  was  exasperated.  The  ecclesiastics 
had  insisted  upon  punishment :  now  they  withheld  from 
punishment.  The  Governor  declared  that  he  would  be 

'Deutre  et  Lareau,  op.  tit.,  vol.  i,  p.  44. 

sSays  La  Tour  in  his  Memoires  de  la  Vie  de  M.  de  Laval,  book  vii: 
"  Quoique  1'etablissement  d'une  cour  souveraine  ne  soit  pas  du  ressort 
de  1'Eglise,  le  Conseil  souverain  de  Canada  fut  1'ouvrage  de  son  premier 
eveque,"  and  the  King  confessed  in  his  instructions  to  Talon  that  the 
Jesuits  had  complained  so  often  of  Avaugour  that  he  had  resolved  not 
only  to  recall  him  but  to  permit  them  to  choose  his  successor.  Coll.  de 
Man.  de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  p.  177. 

3 Mandements  des  Eveques  de  Quebec,  vol.  i,  p.  14. 

*  Journal  des  Jesuites,  October  7,  1661. 


20          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [2O 

no  respecter  of  persons :  none  should  henceforth  be 
punished  for  bartering  liquor  with  the  Indians.  About 
him  grew  up  such  a  party  that  Laval  deemed  it  expe- 
dient in  January  1662  to  suspend  his  excommunication.,1 
but  on  February  24  the  Bishop  renewed  the  excommuni- 
cation owing  to  alleged  murders,  and  injuries  to  innocent 
persons,  committed  during  the  intervening  weeks.  This 
time  he  extended  it  to  all  those  who  were  in  any  way 
the  cause  of  drunkenness  among  the  Indians 2.  But  the 
situation  had  passed  beyond  his  control,  and  realizing 
the  futility  of  his  efforts  to  prevent  what  he  termed  the 
"augmentation  des  desordres",  he  set  sail  for  France 
on  August  12,  1662,  to  obtain  the  removal  of  the  Gover- 
nor General  and  to  curtail  the  power  of  his  office.  He 
pressed  upon  the  King's  attention  the  abuses  in  admin- 
istering justice  in  Canada  and  the  defects  in  the  system, 
and  the  ultimate  form  of  the  Sovereign  Council  bore 
witness  to  the  success  of  his  mission.  The  new  Council 
was  to  be  chosen  by  Governor  and  Bishop  jointly,  and 
the  Governor  was  to  be  stripped  of  his  power  to  entertain 
appeals.  Thus  the  struggle  over  the  sale  of  liquor  to 
the  Indians  may  be  classed  as  the  second  cause  for  the 
erection  of  the  Sovereign  Council. 

In  the  third  place,  the  King  was  dissatisfied  with  the 
administration  of  the  Company  of  One  Hundred  Asso- 
ciates, which  had  been  formed  in  the  time  of  Richelieu. 
Being  financially  unable  to  support  the  country  with  sup- 
plies, it  had  in  1644  returned  the  trade  in  peltries,  which 
was  the  only  advantage  it  drew  from  Canada,  into  the 
hands  of  the  inhabitants,  upon  the  sole  condition  of  an 

1  Journal  des  Jesuites,  January,  1662.  "  Le  jour  de  St.  Matthias,  on 
fut  oblige  de  relever  1' excommunication  a  cause  des  troubles  et  desordres 
extraordinaires. ' ' 

*  Man.  des  Ev,  de  Queb.,  vol.  i,  pp.  42-43. 


2i ]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  2I 

annual  quit- rent  of  1000  beaver  skins.  By  1662  the 
number  of  shares  had  dwindled  from  100  to  45.*  The 
holders  of  these  shares  were  unable  to  stand  the  expense 
necessary  to  develop  their  colony  from  which  they  were 
drawing  no  profit.2  Weakened  by  the  resignation  of 
many  of  its  members,  the  Company  had  been  unable  to 
send  soldiers  and  colonists  to  New  France.  According 
to  one  decree  the  colonists  were  so  few  in  number  that 
they  were  on  the  point  of  being  expelled  by  the  Iroquois. 
It  was  necessary  therefore  to  think  of  maintaining  and 
protecting  them  and  adding  to  their  number.  On  Feb- 
ruary 24,  1663,  the  officers  and  a  dozen  of  the  stockholders 
met  in  Paris.  They  had  learned  that  His  Majesty  was 
desirous  of  obtaining  possession  of  the  country  and  seig- 
niory of  New  France  and  as  a  mark  of  their  profound 
respect  and  entire  deference  to  his  wishes  surrendered 
their  rights.3  The  Company  thus  had  the  opportunity 
both  to  get  rid  of  a  white  elephant  and  to  oblige  Louis 
XIV.  In  March  the  King  accepted  the  cession  of  the 
Company's  rights  explaining  his  resolution  to  take  the 
country  into  his  own  hands.4  This  resumption,  consti- 
tuting New  France  a  royal  province,  aimed  at  the  resus- 
citation of  the  colony. 

The  resumption  of  the  colony  was  probably  a  good 
reason  for  the  establishment  of  a  provincial  form  of  tri- 
bunal. There  were  at  this  time  so-called  "  Sovereign  Coun- 
cils "  at  Ensisheim,  Perpignan,  and  Arras  in  France,  but  it 
must  be  pointed  out  that  the  Sovereign  Council  of  New 

1  Many  influences  were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  King  to  overthrow 
this  tottering  Company.  Avaugour  advised  him  to  dissolve  it.  Gar- 
neau,  Histoire  du  Canada,  vol.  i,  p.  146. 

*  This  is  the  resume  in  the  instructions  to  Talon.  Coll.  de  Man.  de 
Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  p.  177.  See  also  (Clement)  Lettres,  Instructions  et 
Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  389. 

3 Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  30,  31.  "Ibid.,  p.  32. 


22          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [22 

France  was  not  modeled  entirely  upon  them.  For  ex- 
ample, the  edict  establishing  it  made  no  provision  for  an 
intendant.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  like  the  "  ancien  con- 
seil "  of  1648  in  many  ways,  differing  chiefly  in  the  way 
Councillors  were  chosen  and  in  having  much  greater  ju- 
dicial power.  Louis  XIV  and  Colbert  had  had  no  experi- 
ence in  forming  courts  and  consequently  they  adapted  the 
Council  to  Canadian  needs.  They  were  so  pleased  with 
this  experiment  that  they  established  some  nineteen 
months  later  similar  Councils  in  Martinique  and  Guade- 
loupe.1 

The  form  of  the  Sovereign  Council  reflected  the  abso- 
lutist notions  of  the  young  King.  The  Council  of  1648 
was  not  in  accordance  with  such  theories.  The  Coun- 
cil of  1663  was  to  be  constituted  by  the  two  highest 
officials  in  Canada.  The  syndics  were  no  longer  to  help 
elect  Councillors.  Henceforth,  these  men  looked  to 
those  above,  rather  than  those  below,  them  for  appoint- 
ment and  continuance  in  office.  The  King  was  drawing 
the  reigns  of  government  into  his  own  hands. 

In  addition  to  being  a  step  towards  absolutism,  this 
appeared  like  a  victory  for  the  ecclesiastics.  The  Edict 
provided  that  the  Bishop,  or  the  first  ecclesiastic  in  the 
country,  should  share  with  the  Governor  General  the 
power  of  appointing  the  other  members  of  the  Council. 
These  were  five  Councillors,  an  Attorney-General,  and  a 
clerk.  What  formerly  constituted  in  great  measure  the 
functions  of  the  Governor,  was  given  to  the  Council,  in 
which  he  had  but  one  of  the  seven  votes  cast.  In  cer- 
tain actions  final  judgment  had  rested  with  the  Gover- 

1  Arras  (1530-1641-1677),  Perpignan  (1660)  and  Ensisheim  (1657). 
Desmaze,  Le  Parlement  de  Paris,  p.  473.  Letters  patent  creating 
sovereign  Councils  at  Martinique  and  Guadeloupe,  dated  October  n, 
1664. 


23]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  2$ 

nor ;  now,  final  appeal  in  all  actions  was  had  to  the  Sov- 
ereign Council.  It  also  had  wide  powers  of  administration, 
of  regulating  the  judicial  system  in  the  country  and  of 
appointing  officers  of  justice.  In  fact,  the  creation  of 
this  Council,  in  conjunction  with  the  dismissal  of  Avau- 
gour  and  the  appointment  of  Augustin  Saffrey  de  Mesy1 
was  clearly  an  ecclesiastical  triumph. 

On  September  18,  1663,  the  new  Council  entered  upon 
its  century-long  career.  At  the  first  session  the  Edict  of 
Establishment  was  registered  and  in  the  afternoon  session 
the  commissions  of  Governor  de  Mesy  and  M.  Gaudais- 
Dupont  were  likewise  registered.2  As  Mesy  was  strange 
to  the  Canadians  this  first  Council  was  made  up  wholly 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  Bishop.  He  chose  orthodox 
Catholics,  prominent  in  the  affairs  of  the  colony.  The 
names  of  the  first  Councillors  are  worth  remembering  as 
these  men  played  leading  roles  in  the  province  for  many 
years.  The  Councillors  were  commonly  known  by  the 
names  of  Villeray,  La  Ferte,  Auteuil,  Tilly,  and  Damours ; 
the  Attorney-General  was  Jean  Bourdon  and  the  clerk 
Peuvret  de  Mesnu.3 

'The  Jesuits,  allowed  to  choose  the  successor  of  Avaugour,  "jeterent 
done  les  yeux  sur  le  diet  Sr  de  Mesy,  Major  de  la  ville  de  Caen,  qui 
faisoit  profession  d'estre  devost,  et  qu'ils  croyoient  sans  doute  qui  se 
conduiroit  par  leurs  sentimens."  Instructions  to  Talon,  Coll.  de  Man. 
de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  p.  178. 

1 Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  1-3. 

*  As  they  assumed  names  from  lands  they  possessed,  they  appear  in 
their  commissions  as  Louis  Rouer,  Sieur  de  Villeray;  Jean  Juchereau, 
Sieur  de  la  Ferte;  Denis-Joseph  Ruette  d' Auteuil,  Sieur  de  Monceaux; 
Charles  le  Gardeur,  Sieur  de  Tilly;  Mathieu  Damours,  Escuyer,  Sieur 
Descaufour;  Jean  Bourdon,  Sieur  de  St.  Jean  and  St.  Francois;  and  Jean 
Baptiste  Peuvret,  Sieur  de  Mesnu.  Even  in  the  struggling  colony,  men 
prized  titles.  In  1667,  Talon  and  Tracy  asked  that  four  of  the  above 
should  be  given  letters  of  noblesse.  Later  others  received  such  patents. 
See  Munro,  The  Seigniorial  System  in  Canada,  chap.  ix. 


24          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [24 

The  earliest  events  in  the  life  of  the  Council  indicate 
that  a  change  in  its  constitution  was  not  sufficient  to 
assure  "bonne  et  briefe  justice".  In  the  following 
case  the  Sovereign  Council  seems  to  have  withheld  jus- 
tice in  order  to  protect  some  of  its  members.  The 
Company  of  One  Hundred  Associates  some  years  before 
had  sent  out  Peronne  Dumesnil  to  investigate  the  frauds 
which  it  believed  were  regularly  practised  upon  it.  The 
commissioner  thought  he  had  gathered  evidence  sufficient 
to  convict  some  of  the  leading  members  of  the  colony, 
among  them  Villeray  and  Bourdon.  The  day  after  the 
arrival  of  Mesy,  Dumesnil  begged  the  Governor  not  to 
appoint  these  two  men  to  the  Council  until  they  should 
make  satisfactory  statements  of  the  Company's  money  that 
had  passed  through  their  hands, — basing  this  request 
upon  the  decrees  of  March  27,  1647  and  May  13,  1659.* 
The  suspected  men  were  nevertheless  appointed  on 
the  following  day.  At  the  second  meeting  of  the 
Council  the  said  Bourdon,  now  Attorney  General,  rep- 
resented that  a  certain  Peronne  Dumesnil  had  caused  an 
agent  to  force  the  window  of  the  study  of  Auteuil,  former 
secretary  of  the  Council,  and  to  carry  away  several  papers, 
including  some  from  the  Council's  registers,  which  he 
had  used  for  purposes  of  intimidation,  forcing  signatures 
from  some  persons  and  withholding  concessions  from 
others.  The  other  suspected  member,  Villeray,  now 
First  Councillor,  was  commissioned  to  search  the  house 
of  Dumesnil,  seize  the  alleged  stolen  papers  and  enclose 
them  in  a  strong  box.2  Villeray,  if  we  may  believe 
Dumesnil,  executed  his  commission  in  an  unnecessarily 
harsh  manner.  Breaking  into  Dumesnil's  house  in  the 

1Kingsford,  vol.  i,  p.  306,  et  seq.    The  author  has  had  access  to  the 
Dumesnil  account  of  the  affair. 
2  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  4. 


25]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  25 

early  evening  with  a  file  of  ten  soldiers,  he  forced  the 
place  of  deposit  and  extracted  the  papers  while  Dumesnil 
was  held  to  a  chair.  The  outraged  man  appealed  to 
Gaudais,  who  presented  his  complaint  to  the  Council 
accusing  four  of  its  members, — Villeray,  La  Ferte,  Tilly, 
and  Auteuil.  The  petition  was  referred  to  Gaudais  x  and 
was  evidently  suppressed  as  no  report  of  the  case  was 
ever  made.  The  Councillors  had  succeeded  in  burying 
the  investigation  of  Peronne  Dumesnil  in  oblivion. 

This  one  incident  excepted,  the  new  Council  showed 
remarkable  moderation  in  its  first  operations.  Even 
while  granting  Bishop  Laval  the  desired  decree  forbid- 
ding the  sale  of  liquor  to  the  Indians,  it  reduced  the  pen- 
alty of  death  to  300  livres  for  the  first  offence,  and  the 
whip  and  banishment  for  a  repetition.2  During  the  de- 
liberations all  interested  parties  were  consulted,  among 
others  the  Jesuit  fathers. 

The  same  moderation  was  shown  in  the  attitude  of  the 
Council  towards  the  political  work  of  the  former  Gover- 
nor, Avaugour,  the  Bishop's  old  enemy.  On  October  2 
a  lease  that  he  had  made  of  the  trade  of  Tadoussac  to  a 
number  of  Canadians  was  annulled  upon  the  ground  that 
the  Governor  had  failed  to  get  the  consent  of  his  Coun- 
cil.3 There  was  no  hint  of  personal  spite  in  this  action, 
and  this  was  the  only  case  in  which  Avaugour's  good 
judgment  was  attacked.  Four  actions  arose  on  October 
13,  November  24,  and  December  I,  1663,  and  on  Janu- 
ary 16,  1664,  which  involved  the  question  of  sustaining 
or  reversing  his  judgments,  and  in  no  case  did  the  Coun- 
cil do  more  than  modify  them.  Not  one  was  reversed,4 
although  the  words  "  sans  avoir  esgard  au  jugement  de 
M.  d' Avaugour"  which  appear  several  times  in  the 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  6.  *Ibid.,  p.  8. 

9f6id.,  pp.  9  12.  *Ibid.,  pp.  25,  64,  75,  93. 


26          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [26 

record  might  indicate  the  Council's  desire  to  arrive  at  a 
judgment  independently. 

The  first  few  months  were  filled  with  the  work  of  set- 
tling many  disputes,  for  the  most  part  of  a  petty  nature ; 
and  only  occasionally  did  signs  of  friction  become  appar- 
ent. On  November  28  Governor  de  Mesy  confessed  in 
Council  meeting  that  there  had  been  some  difficulty  be- 
tween M.  the  Bishop,  M.  the  Intendant, z  and  himself 
concerning  his  salary  and  "  appointments ".  He  pro- 
posed that  the  Sovereign  Council  should  vote  to  him 
what  any  one  of  the  last  three  Governors  of  New  France 
had  received.  The  Council  did  as  requested,  electing  to 
give  him  the  salary  and  "appointments  that  had  been 
granted  to  Argenson." 2 

Meanwhile  the  question  of  local  government  for  Que- 
bec created  some  dissatisfaction.  On  October  7,  1663, 
a  mayor  and  two  aldermen  had  been  elected  by  the 
citizens  of  Quebec  and  vicinity  at  the  instance  of  the 
Council.3  These  officers  had  neglected  their  duties  and 
the  mayor  had  declared  to  Tilly  that  he  intended  to 
present  his  resignation  to  the  Governor.  He  should 
have  addressed  the  Governor  directly.  On  November 
14  the  Council,  in  consideration  of  the  failure  of  these 
local  officers  to  do  their  duty  and  of  the  informal  charac- 
ter of  the  resignation,4  ordered  that  the  former  election 
of  mayor  and  aldermen  should  be  disregarded,  that  these 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  67.  Although  Gaudais  did  not  receive 
the  title  of  Intendant  in  his  commission  and  secret  instructions  and  is 
not  accounted  the  first  Intendant  of  New  France,  he  is  here  spoken  of 
as  "  Monsieur  1'Intendant." 

'Ibid.,  p.  78.  *Ibid.,  p.  15. 

*"  Etquemesme  le  pais  n'estant  encorqu'en  tres  petite  consideration 
pour  le  petitesse  de  son  estendue  en  deserts  et  nombre  de  peuples,  II 
seroit  plus  a  propos  de  se  contanter  d'un  scyndicq  Eu  esgard  au  peu 
d'affaires  qui  concernent  le  devoir  de  ces  charges."  Ibid.,  p.  57. 


27]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  27 

offices  should  be  abolished,  and  that  the  people  should 
proceed  to  elect  a  syndic.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
Mesy  was  present  at  this  meeting.  In  any  case  the 
mayor  should  have  been  encouraged  to  obtain  his  release 
from  the  Governor  before  the  Council  took  this  step. 
In  view  of  the  trouble  that  ensued  over  the  local  govern- 
ment of  Quebec,  one  must  conclude  that  already  eccle- 
siastical influence  was  at  work  to  prevent  any  other 
government  for  Quebec  than  the  sway  of  Bishop  and 
Seminary. 

In  December  a  difficulty  arose  between  the  Governor 
and  Villeray.  The  latter  had  been  ordered  by  the  Coun- 
cil to  investigate  and  report  a  number  of  causes  and  had 
already  introduced  several.  Notwithstanding  this  order 
of  the  Council,  on  February  4,  1664,  public  notice  was 
given  by  the  Governor  notifying  parties  who  had  peti- 
tions to  present,  to  address  themselves  to  him  when  the 
business  concerned  the  interests  of  the  King,  and  to  the 
Council  in  open  meeting  when  it  concerned  justice  or 
police,  alleging  that  the  practice  was  an  innovation  in- 
troduced at  the  instigation  of  certain  members  of  the 
Council.1  Any  member  who  should  suppress  a  petition 
was  to  be  liable  to  exclusion  from  the  Council.  This 
notice  was  posted  up  "  to  beat  of  drum  "  by  Angouville, 
Major  of  Fort  St.  Louis.  On  the  I3th,  this  same  mili- 
tary officer  was  sent  by  Mesy  to  announce  to  the  Bishop 
the  Governor's  intention  to  exclude  from  the  Council 
Villeray  and  Auteuil,  Councillors,  and  Bourdon,  Attor- 
ney-General, and  to  have  their  successors  elected  in  a 
"  popular  assembly."  Laval  was  asked  to  acquiesce  in  this 
arrangement,  but  instead  he  protested  against  the  regis- 
tration of  such  a  document  as  a  dangerous  precedent. 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  M&ry,  series  F  iii,  vol.  i,  p.  292. 


2g          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [2g 

Angouville  answered  that  the  Governor  would  have  it 
published  without  registration.1  The  same  day  the  Gov- 
ernor obtained  an  ordinance  of  Council2  signed  by  him- 
self, Tilly,  La  Ferte,  and  Damours,  suspending  Villeray 
and  Auteuil  from  their  positions  as  Councillors.  For  a 
few  weeks  the  Governor  and  these  three  members  con- 
ducted the  administration  of  justice,  but  as  the  need  of 
an  Attorney-General  was  felt,  the  Governor  proposed 
the  erection  of  the  office  of  deputy  Attorney-General.3 
The  Bishop  opposed  this  project.  He  could  not  acqui- 
esce in  the  removal  of  former  Council  members  unless 
convinced  of  their  crime,  nor  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a 
deputy  Attorney-General.  Nevertheless  on  March  10 
the  Council  permitted  the  registration  of  letters  from 
Mesy  granting  the  office  of  deputy  Attorney-General  to 
Louis-Theandre  Chartier,  Sieur  de  Lotbiniere.4  The 
Bishop  again  protested  against  the  creation  of  an  office 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  Attorney-General. 

The  "rump"  Council  thus  provided  with  a  deputy 
Attorney-General  heard  many  causes  during  the  next 
month.  After  a  time  the  old  members  were  re-admitted, 
and  a  general  reconciliation  took  place  on  April  16. 
The  Governor  erased  certain  phrases  from  the  ordinance 
of  February  13,  declared  that  it  should  be  considered 
null  and  void,  and  re-established  all  as  before  its  pro- 
mulgation.5 The  deputy  Attorney-General  gracefully 
resigned  and  the  reunited  Council  gave  itself  uninter- 
ruptedly to  the  business  of  administration. 

^Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  121. 

2  This  document  accuses  two  Councillors  and  the  Bishop  of  usurping 
the  authority  of  the  Governor  and  of  fomenting  sedition.     Supplement 
Canadian  Archives  Report,  1899,  P-  53- 

3  March  5,  1664.    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  127-128. 
*Ibid.,  p.  129.  ~*Ibid.,  p.  170. 


29  ]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  29 

In  June  the  Council  instituted  an  innovation,  which, 
in  view  of  the  somewhat  electric  condition  of  the  atmos- 
phere, was  not  well-considered.  It  sent  letters  dated  the 
1 3th  and  written  by  the  hand  of  Villeray  to  the  King  and 
minister.  These  were  signed  by  "  le  Conseil  Souverain 
Etably  a  Quebecq  'V  The  topics  treated  were  such  as 
the  Governor  generally  discussed  in  his  letters  to  the 
home  government.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Mesy 
showed  resentment  at  this  encroachment  upon  the  time- 
honored  duties  of  the  Governor,  but  he  must  have  seen 
in  it  a  revival  of  the  "  Cabal "  under  the  influence  of 
Laval  for  the  purpose  of  undermining  his  power. 

During  the  next  three  months  events  occurred  in  the 
Council  meeting  which  shook  the  foundations  of  the  gov- 
ernment. On  July  28  the  Attorney- General  had  asked  the 
election  of  a  syndic  for  Quebec,  which,  following  the 
Council's  ordinance,  duly  occurred,  resulting  in  the  elec- 
tion of  one  Charron  by  a  majority  vote.  As  there  were 
but  twenty-three  electors  present,  and  as  Charron  was  a 
merchant  and  inclined  to  consider  only  the  interests  of 
his  class,  certain  citizens  were  prompted  to  petition  the 
Council  for  his  removal.  This  was  effected  without  in- 
jury to  Charron's  feelings  and  another  election  was 
ordered.  The  second  meeting  was  more  poorly  attended 
than  the  first.  In  fact  so  few  were  present  that  no  elec- 
tion was  attempted.  The  Governor  began  to  realize  that 
"the  Cabal  of  the  Council,"  as  he  called  it,  was  deter- 
mined not  to  allow  the  election  of  a  syndic  and  to  that 
effect  had  used  every  effort  to  keep  people  away  from 
the  elections.  He  determined  to  outwit  his  opponents. 
He  issued  writs  to  a  numerous  electorate  without  stating 
the  purpose  of  the  proposed  meeting,  and  under-  the 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  201-206. 


30          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [30 

supervision  of  himself  and  Councillor  Damours  the  meet- 
ing was  held  and  a  syndic  was  successfully  elected.1 

But  the  "Cabal"  was  not  to  be  outwitted.  The 
Bishop  was  at  this  time  masking  behind  the  Sieur  de 
Charny,  who  usually  attended  the  Council  in  his  stead 
to  lead  the  opposition.  No  sooner  then  was  the  syndic- 
elect  presented  to  the  Council  to  be  installed  in  his  office 
than  objection  arose  from  various  Councillors.  Charny, 
La  Ferte  and  Auteuil  (Villeray  being  absent  on  a  voyage 
to  France)  succeeded  in  excluding  Tilly  and  Damours 
from  the  deliberations  and  were  about  to  reject  the  can- 
didate when  Mesy  postponed  the  consideration  of  the 
subject  until  another  day.  A  second  time  the  Governor 
summoned  the  syndic-elect  before  the  Council  to  take 
the  oath,  and  again  Charny  interfered  as  spokesman  of 
the  "  Cabal."  La  Ferte  and  Auteuil  joined  in  the  attack, 
when  the  Governor,  mindful  that  their  term  of  office  was 
nearly  expired,  began  negotiations  with  the  Bishop  for 
their  removal.2  On  August  25  an  exchange  of  notes 
took  place.  Mesy  asked  the  Bishop  to  agree  to  the 
choice  of  new  Councillors  to  replace  Villeray,  La  Ferte 
and  Auteuil,  Bourdon,  Attorney-General,  and  Peuvret  de 
Mesnu,  clerk.  He  offered  to  make  nominations  from 
any  twelve  persons  whom  the  Bishop  might  propose; 
or  himself  to  propose  twelve  persons  from  whom  the 
Bishop  might  make  the  selections.  The  Bishop  replied 
that  he  could  not  consent  to  the  election  of  Councilors 

1  See  ibid.,  pp.  278-280,  where  the  greater  part  of  this  account  appears 
as  a  review  of  the  case.  This  review  is  substantially  in  accordance  with 
information  gathered  from  other  records  in  the  same  collection  and  from 
the  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mhy. 

*  The  Edict  of  Establishment  authorized  the  Governor  and  the  Bishop 
conjointly  to  dismiss  from,  and  refill  offices  of  Councilors  at  the  close 
of  each  fiscal  year. 


31]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  ^ 

until  the  arrival  of  M.  de  Tracy,1  who  had  been  appointed 
viceroy  of  New  France  and  the  West  Indies.  Driven  to 
the  wall,  the  Governor  on  September  19,  1664,  declared 
four  seats  vacant.  All  four  men  accepted  their  dis- 
missal in  good  part,  except  Bourdon,  the  Attorney- 
General,  who  shouted  out  in  haughty  and  insolent  dis- 
dain that  he  did  not  consider  himself  dispossessed  of  his 
office.  A  violent  scene  followed,  during  which  Bourdon 
was  maltreated  and  put  out  of  the  Council  chamber,  as 
a  salutary  warning  against  further  insubordination.2 
Mesy  had  gained  the  day.  He  reappointed  Damours 
and  Tilly  for  a  second  year,  and  a  week  later  filled  the 
other  vacancies  in  the  Council. 

Mgr.  Laval 3  had  occupied  a  strong  position.     While 

1  Had  Mesy  consented  he  would  have  had  a  hostile  Council  until  the 
middle  of  the  summer  following.    These  letters  are  found  in  extenso  in 
Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  i,  pp.  316,  317. 

2  A  copy  of  this  record  of  September  19  is  found  in  the  above  collection; 
also  a  factum  by  the  Bishop,  in  Canadian  Archives  Report,  1905,  p. 
506,  where  Bourdon's  chastisement  is  set  forth  as  follows:    "  M.  de 
Charny  having  asked  M.  de  Mesy  the  reason  of  his  refusal  to  enter  on 
the  registers  the  deliberations  of  the  Council,  he  got  into  a  frenzy  and 
said  to  the  whole  Council:  '  I  dismiss  you,  go  out;  I  do  not  suspend  you 
only,  I  dismiss  you,  go  away  from  here,'  threatening  them  with  insult- 
ing words,  a  stick  in  his  hand  and  looking  at  the  registrar  and  the  Sr. 
Bourdon,  Procureur  General,  he  said,  'I  dismiss  you  also.'     M.  Bour- 
don retorted:  '  As  to  me,  Sir,  I  must  not  consider  myself  as  dismissed; 
the  decree  of  the  establishment  of  the  Council  does  not  enact  that  I  may 
be  removed;  I  ask  you,  if  you  please,  that  it  should  be  read.'     Hearing 
this,  M.  de  Mesy  rose  up  out  of  his  chair,  took  M.  Bourdon  by  the  throat 
and  pulled  him  out  of  his  place  by  force,  hit  him  on  the  head  with  his 
stick,  drew  out  his  sword  and  struck  him  many  times,  when  the  Sieurs 
D' Amours  and  D'Auteuil  covered  him,  thus  enabling  the  said  Bour- 
don to  retire.     He  went  out.     M.  de  Mesy  followed  him  outside,  hit 
him  again  repeatedly  with  his  stick  and  with  the  flat  side  of  his  sword 
and  wounded  one  of  his  hands,  saying,  '  I  will  kill  you.'     Sr  Bourdon 
retired  without  saying  a  word  and  called  on  a  surgeon  to  get  his  wound 
dressed." 

3  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  preserves  the  memory  of  ancient  epis- 


32          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [32 

his  proxy  and  his  partisans  in  the  Council  drove  the 
Governor  most  ardently  to  desire  their  dismissal,  the 
Bishop  refused  him  the  one  legitimate  way  out :  he  de- 
clined to  cooperate  in  changing  the  personnel  of  the 
Council,  a  personnel  that  the  Governor  could  no  longer 
tolerate.  He  forced  Mesy  into  the  adoption  of  violent 
measures  that  placed  him  in  the  wrong  before  the  King ' 
and  before  posterity. 

The  new  Councillors  appointed  by  Mesy  served  from 
September  24,  1664,  to  July  6,  1665.  During  that  time 
there  was  energetic  and  concerted  action.  The  struggle 
between  Governor  and  Bishop  was  now  waged  outside 
the  Council  chamber  walls,  the  opposition  being  offered 
both  by  the  Bishop  and  by  his  adherents.  It  was  the 
intention  of  the  Governor  to  establish  the  authority  and 
prestige  of  the  new  Council.  Four  days  after  its  first 
meeting,  proclamation  of  its  establishment  was  published 
at  the  door  of  the  church,  without  making  mention  of 
the  opposition  of  the  Bishop,  but  next  day  Laval  from 

copal  sees  which  have  lapsed  through  the  decline  of  population  or 
through  falling  into  the  hands  of  infidel  or  heretic  nations,  by  bestow- 
ing their  bishoprics  as  honorary  titles  upon  coadjutor  and  suffragan 
bishops,  apostolic  vicars  and  delegates,  etc.  Such  bishoprics  are  called 
bishoprics  in  partibus  infidelium.  As  Quebec  was  not  erected  into  a 
see  until  1674,  its  first  vicar  apostolic,  Fran<jois-Xavier  de  Laval-Mont- 
morenci,  held  the  title  of  Bishop  of  Petraea  in  partibus  infidelium, 
from,  it  is  said,  a  decayed  city  in  Arabia.  The  great  Italian  authority 
Moroni  claims,  however,  that  Petraea  has  given  the  title  of  archbishop 
ever  since  the  days  of  Baldwin,  king  of  Jerusalem,  who  restored  the 
ancient  see ;  while  Petra,  a  city  in  Asia  Minor,  has  always  given  the 
title  to  a  bishop.  A  doubt  may  arise,  therefore,  as  to  the  correctness 
of  title  Bishop  "  de  Petraea"  which  the  bull  expressly  accords  Laval. 
See  Moroni,  Dizionario  de  erudizione  storico-ecclesiastica,  under 
"  Vescovi  in  partibus  infidelium''  and  "  Mandements  des  Eveques" 
vol.  i. 

1  See  the  grossly  unfair  accounts  of  Colbert  in  instructions  to  Talon 
and  also  La  Chesnaye's  Memoir  written  in  1676.  Coll.  de  Man.  de 
Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  pp.  178,  260. 


33]  WE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  33 

the  pulpit  destroyed  any  illusions  that  might  be  enter- 
tained on  that  score.  On  October  5  a  proclamation  of 
Mesy  against  the  Bishop  and  his  partisans  was  promul- 
gated to  the  sound  of  the  drum.  Laval  retaliated;  or  at 
any  rate  the  Governor  claimed  that  he  was  refused 
confession  and  absolution.1 

Several  evidences  of  the  struggle  appear  in  the  Coun- 
cil records.  On  October  i,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Governor,  Tilly  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  denun- 
ciations of  the  Sieur  Pommier  uttered  from  the  pulpit 
of  the  parochial  church  in  Quebec.2  On  November  19 
the  Governor  declared  that  he.  would  oppose  Messieurs 
the  Ecclesiastics  receiving  any  funds  until  they  acqui- 
esced in  the  reorganization  of  the  government.3  But 
the  Bishop  nevertheless  continued  his  opposition.  In 
November  he  refused  the  repeated  requests  of  the  syndic 
of  Quebec  to  publish  a  warning  against  those  who 
sequestered  merchandise  and  kept  it  out  of  the  market. 
This  monopoly  had  proved  so  harmful  that  on  December 
17  the  Council  authorized  the  monitory  letter  of  the 
syndic,  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  year  gave  it  the  force 
of  law.4 

Subsequently  the  struggle  languished.  As  Mesy  sick- 
ened and  approached  his  end  he  made  his  peace  with  the 
ecclesiastics.  He  died  on  May  5,  1665.  To  him  justice 
has  never  been  done.  His  papers  disappeared  after  his 
death  and  Talon  made  no  report  concerning  his  con- 
duct. The  Intendant  possibly  thought  it  more  politic 
to  spare  the  feelings  of  the  living  than  to  preserve  the 
reputation  of  the  dead. 

^Journal  des  J&suites,  October,  1664. 

*Jugentents  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  283.  Tilly  is  to  inform  himself  of 
"  plusieurs  choses  .  .  .  centre  le  service  du  Roy  et  bien  public  comme 
affiches  et  autres  pratiques  Caballenzes." 

s Ibid.,  p.  300.  4 Ibid.,  pp.  305,  309. 


34          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [34 

The  whole  struggle  turned  upon  the  desirability  of  a 
syndic  in  Quebec.  The  Bishop  opposed  the  election, 
installation,  and  functioning  of  the  syndic,  probably  for 
two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  probably  jealous 
of  any  other  than  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  Quebec. 
In  the  second  place,  he  desired  the  mercantile  class  to 
remain  without  a  leader  as  only  thus  could  he  hope  to 
keep  the  ban  upon  the  liquor  traffic  with  the  Indians. 
The  opening  of  this  trade  effected  under  the  leadership 
of  Talon  proved  the  wisdom  of  his  fears. 

Jacques  Leneuf  de  la  Poterie,  the  Lieutenant  Governor, 
had  been  authorized  by  Mesy  to  conduct  the  government 
until  the  arrival  of  new  officials,  but  his  right  was  denied 
by  the  Council.  It  refused  to  admit  him  as  its  "  Chief 
and  President "  and  limited  his  functions  to  the  man- 
agement of  the  militia.1  It  was  alleged  that  the  Governor 
had  not  the  right  to  nominate  a  substitute;  that  the 
power  of  appointing  First  Presidents  for  his  parlements 
rested  with  the  King.  Having  thus  stated  their  consti- 
tutional grounds  and  incidentally  shown  that  their  sense 
of  obligation  to  Mesy  had  not  outlived  him,  the  Council- 
lors pushed  forward  repairs  on  the  Chateau  St.  Louis 
and  the  palais  de  justice,  for  the  reception  of  his  succes- 
sors. 

On  July  6  the  Sovereign  Council  was  honored  by  the 
presence  of  the  Marquis  de  Tracy,  Lieutenant  General 
of  all  the  Americas.  At  the  meetings  on  this  day  the 
commission  of  Tracy  was  registered ;  so  also  was  the 
edict  of  establishment  of  the  Company  of  the  West 
Indies,  the  King  having  tired  of  his  experiment  and 
established  a  new  Company.2  This  was  the  last  session 
of  Mesy's  reconstructed  Council.  Thus  terminated  that 

^Jugements  et  D&tib.,  vol.  i,  p.  350.    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  25. 
5  Jugernents  et  D&lib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  363-364. 


35]  THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  35 

part  of  the  Council's  history,  which  concerned  New 
France  as  a  royal  province. 

Nearly  a  year  and  ten  months  before,  the  Sovereign 
Council  had  been  erected  in  the  midst  of  a  turbulent, 
scheming,  grafting,  frontier  community.  Almost  every 
American  colony,  English,  Dutch  or  French,  possessed 
the  same  characteristics :  the  shrewd  pushing  element 
bent  on  rising  by  any  means  and  with  glaring  lack  of 
public  integrity;  and  the  wild,  irresponsible  class  that 
freedom  from  routine-work  and  the  presence  of  an  inferior 
race  produced.  But  in  Canada  the  presence  of  still  a 
third  class,  the  ubiquitous  Jesuit  and  ecclesiastic,  by  no 
means  lessened  the  difficulties  of  government. 

Sometimes  a  reflection  of  the  turbulence  of  the  com- 
munity appeared  within  the  Council  chamber,  where 
there  was  a  fair  display  of  give  and  take.  There  was  no 
morbid  nursing  of  enmity  however.  Governor  and 
Bishop,  the  principals  in  this  struggle,  exchanged  amen- 
ities even  so  late  as  New  Year's  Day  of  1664.  Most  of 
the  Councillors  had  "  played  the  game ,"  and  knew  what 
a  "  square  deal "  meant,  and  once  in  power  they  applied 
this  knowledge  to  a  surprising  degree.  With  some  few 
exceptions  they  displayed  a  keen  sense  of  justice  and 
and  moderation  in  judgment.  The  Sovereign  Council 
did  good  service  during  this  period,  of  which  we  have 
chronicled  only  the  exceptional  incidents. 

The  narrative  of  the  succeeding  years  of  the  Council's 
history  must  be  supplemented  by  the  imaginative  intelli- 
gence of  the  reader.  I  shall  content  myself  with  indi- 
cating the  unusual  events  in  its  life,  leaving  the  weeks, 
months  and  years,  in  which  judicial  and  administrative 
business  was  carefully  though  monotonously  performed, 
to  be  presupposed.  The  tale  of  how  many  judgments, 
arrgts,  and  rdglemens  were  issued  in  each  term  and  the 


36          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [36 

nature  of  this  business  is  not  the  subject  of  this  chapter, 
although  such  a  narrative  would  most  truly  represent 
the  average  life  of  the  Council. 

During  the  decade  following  the  arrival  of  Tracy  the 
government  of  New  France  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Company  of  the  West  Indies.  In  reality  the  change 
from  royal  to  proprietary  government  was  merely  nomi- 
nal, and  affected  the  Sovereign  Council  but  little.  In 
return  for  part  payment  of  the  costs  of  government  the 
Company  was  authorized  to  make  nominations  to  the 
Council,  and  might  be  represented  in  that  tribunal  by 
its  general  agent.1  The  burden  of  the  first  provision 
was  not  evaded,  while  the  privileges  of  the  second  and 
third  provisions  were  not  fully  enjoyed.  Le  Barroys, 
the  general  agent  of  the  Company,  rarely  attended  the 
Council  meetings,2  and  it  was  not  until  1674  that  the 
representatives  of  the  Company  attempted  to  influence 
the  personnel  of  the  Council  by  using  their  right  of 
nomination.  In  actual  working  the  government  was 
still  that  of  a  royal  province.  The  King  poured  men 
and  money  into  the  country  and  kept  in  closest  touch 
with  its  chief  officials. 

The  new  regime  began  in  the  autumn  of  1665.  On 
September  12  Daniel  de  Remy  de  Courcelles,  Mesy's  suc- 
cessor, arrived  in  Quebec.  Upon  the  same  vessel  came 
Jean  Talon,  the  first  Intendant  of  New  France.  A  com- 
mission for  this  office,  dated  March  21,  had  been  given 
to  Louis  Robert  in  1663,  but  he  failed  to  cross  the 
Atlantic.  If  he  had  come,  what  position  would  he  have 
held  in  the  Council — because  the  Edict  of  Establishment 

1  Le  Barroys  conducted  most  of  his  business  with  Tracy,  Courcelles 
and  Talon.  There  is  proof  of  his  attendance  at  the  first  meeting  of  the 
Council  in  September,  1665. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  51-60. 


THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  37 

made  no  mention  of  an  Intendant?  Gaudais  came  to 
New  France  in  that  year,  exercised  some  of  the  func- 
tions of  Intendant  and  was  occasionally  spoken  of  as 
such,  but  he  was  not  given  the  title  either  in  his  commis- 
sion or  secret  instructions.  On  the  other  hand,  Talon's 
commission  and  instructions  gave  him  a  very  strong 
position  in  the  Sovereign  Council.  He  was  the  first 
Intendant  de  jure  et  de  facto. 

Thus  augmented  by  the  presence  of  lieutenant-general, 
Intendant  and  general  agent  of  the  West  India  Company, 
the  Council  held  its  first  meeting  on  September  23,  and 
at  this  meeting  the  commissions  of  Governor,  Intendant 
and  general  agent  were  registered.1  The  proportion  of 
more  dignified  officials  to  ordinary  Councillors  was  much 
larger  than  during  Mesy's  day :  there  were  six  of  the 
former  and  only  four  of  the  latter,  as  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  minutes  of  this  first  meeting  were  signed 
by  Tracy,  Courcelles,  the  Bishop  of  Petraea,  Talon,  Le 
Barroys,  and  Villeray  as  First  Councillor.  The  presence 
of  Villeray  in  his  old  position  indicates  that  those  whom 
Mesy  had  dismissed  had  been  reinstated.2  This  does  not 
mean  the  unqualified  triumph  of  Bishop  and  Jesuits,  be- 
cause from  1665  until  1674  appointments  to  the  Council 
were  made  by  Governor  and  Intendant.3  On  the  con- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  364. 

2  At  the  annual  installation  of  the  Council,  December  6,  1666,  both 
Auteuil  and  La  Ferte  were  dropped.    The  others  are  spoken  of  as  con- 
tinued in  office.  Therefore  they  must  have  been  appointed  in  1665.  Ibid., 
p.  367.    Abbe  Ferland,  Cours  d'histoire  du  Canada,  vol.  ii,  p.  58,  says 
that  Villeray,   Gorribon,  Tilly,   Damours   and   La  Tesserie  were  ap- 
pointed. 

3 Tracy,  Courcelles  and  Talon  were  empowered  to  make  what  changes 
they  thought  desirable  in  the  Council.  Instructions  to  Talon,  Doutre 
and  Lereau,  i,  147;  also  (Clement)  Lettres,  Instructions  et  Memoires  de 
Colbert,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  389,  et  seq. 


38          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [38 

trary,  the  decline  of  ecclesiastical  influence  in  the  affairs 
of  government  became  more  and  more  apparent. 

This  decline  between  1665  and  1672  was  due  to  the 
dominance  of  Talon  in  the  counsels  of  the  Sovereign 
Council.  The  question  at  issue  was  again  the  liquor 
traffic  with  the  Indians.  The  prohibition  party,  led  by 
Bishop  Laval,  now  very  faithful  in  his  attendance  at 
Council  meetings,  gradually  lost  ground.  No  ordinances 
imposing  stringent  punishments  could  be  obtained.  The 
Council  was  half-hearted  in  its  measures  and  was  slow  to 
prosecute  offenders.  For  example,  on  December  6,  1666, 
the  Council  abolished  the  death  penalty  and  substituted 
discretionary  fines  and  corporal  punishment.1  A  decree 
of  January  5  to  the  same  effect  was  followed  in  April  by 
the  appointment  of  Gorribon  to  investigate  reported  in- 
fractions in  the  neighborhood  of  Three  Rivers  and  Cape 
Magdeleine.2  On  June  20  three  men  were  surprised 
while  attempting  to  trade  with  the  Indians.  The  Coun- 
cil awarded  the  money  obtained  from  the  sale  of  the  con- 
fiscated liquor  to  the  denunciator,  but  made  no  effort  to 
prosecute  the  delinquents  further.3  On  February  29, 
1668,  an  ordinance  was  passed  instructing  local  judges  to 
keep  the  Council  informed  of  the  contraventions  of  its 
ordinances  and  the  crimes  and  disorders  that  followed 
upon  the  drunkenness  of  the  Indians.  It  ordered  these 
judges  to  imprison  the  delinquents  until  a  member  of  the 
Council  could  be  sent  to  conduct  the  trial  of  the  ac- 
cused.4 It  forbade  persons  to  carry  drink  or  merchan- 
dise into  the  woods,  without  however  restricting  those 
who  wished  to  hunt  game  for  the  "  boiling-pot ".  No 

1  Jugements  et  D&lib.,  vol.  i,  p.  368. 

1  Ibid. ,  p.  588.  *  Ibid.,  p.  410. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  474-476. 


•       THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  39 

record  of  prosecutions  follows.  Earlier  in  the  month  the 
Bishop  had  complained  that  since  he  had  been  compelled 
to  raise  his  excommunication,  the  people  had  forgotten 
that  it  was  a  mortal  sin  to  sell  drink  to  the  savages.1  As 
regards  this  matter  Laval  was  losing  ground  both  within 
and  without  the  Council  chamber. 

Meanwhile  Talon  was  gaining  ground  in  the  Council, 
where  he  was  gradually  entrusted  with  many  commissions. 
On  July  30,  1667,  the  Council  referred  the  syndic  of 
Quebec  to  the  Intendant  to  consider  measures  to  reduce 
the  prices  asked  by  French  merchants.2  On  August  20 
it  ordered  that  all  petitions  tending  to  commence  a  suit 
should  be  addressed  to  Talon  to  be  by  him  assigned  to 
the  Council  or  to  the  local  court  of  Quebec,  or  retained 
to  be  judged  by  himself  independently.3  The  Governor 
protested  against  this  ordinance  as  encroaching  upon  his 
authority.  Again,  on  October  17,  the  Council  requested 
Talon  to  write  to  the  Court  concerning  the  organization 
of  a  company  of  inhabitants  for  monopoly  of  trade.4  On 
January  16,  1668,  the  Council  ordered  the  execution  of 
its  decree  of  August  20,  1667,  providing  that  judicial 
business  should  be  distributed  by  the  Intendant.  This 
action  of  the  Council  was  taken  against  the  protest  of 
of  Governor  de  Courcelles  and  at  the  instance  of  Talon.5 

Finally,  on    November  5    the  Council  wrote  a  short 

1  Mand.  des  Ev.  de  Queb.,  vol.  i,  p.  72. 

^Ju^ements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  433. 

*Ibid.,  pp.  447,  448.  4  Ibid.,  p.  457- 

5 Ibid.,  p.  469.  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Crown,  and  Colbert 
refused  to  allow  Talon  to  exercise  this  prerogative,  saying  that  reference 
to  the  Council  or  the  Intendant  of  all  petitions  would  greatly  complicate 
judicial  business;  and  that  the  judges  of  the  lower  courts  should  take 
cognizance  of  all  matters  within  their  competence,  and  that  from  their 
judgments  appeal  might  be  carried  to  the  Sovereign  Council.  (Clement) 
Lettres,  Instructions  et  Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  iii,  p.  542. 


40          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [40 

letter  to  Colbert  which  shows  the  degree  of  confidence 
it  reposed  in  Talon  : 

"  Monseigneur, 

Since  M.  Talon  has  resolved  to  return  to  France,  esteeming 
his  health  strong  enough  to  support  the  fatigues  of  the  voyage, 
we  shall  add  nothing  to  the  letter  which  we  have  had  the 
honor  to  write  to  you.  Since  he  is  perfectly  enlightened  con- 
cerning everything  that  relates  to  the  welfare  of  this  country, 
he  will  be  able  to  give  you  true  information.  We  relie  en- 
tirely on  him(JVous  nous  en  remettons  enttirement  ct,  luy).  And 
however,  we  shall  not  cease  to  pray  God  for  the  continuance 
or  your  prosperity  and  good  health  as  being, 

Monseigneur, 

Your  very  humble,  very  obedient,  and  much  favored  servants, 
The  Sovereign  Council  of  New  France  'V 

Five  days  later  the  Council  declared  trade  in  liquor 
with  the  Indians  open  to  all  French  inhabitants  of  New 
France.  Talon  witnessed  the  triumph  of  his  policy  be- 
fore he  sailed  for  France.  The  evil  effects  of  drink  upon 
the  savages  were  freely  admitted  in  the  Council  chamber, 
but  the  measure  was  urged  in  order  to  give  the  better 
class  of  citizens  profits  that  men  of  the  lowest  character 
were  clandestinely  enjoying,  and  to  treat  the  Indians 
more  fairly  in  trade  and  to  form  a  closer  union  with 
them.2  Talon  felt  the  evils  that  strong  drink  brought 
on  the  colony,  and  had  begun  the  construction  of  a 
brewery  in  order  that  "nourishing  and  wholesome" 
beer  might  replace  brandy  and  wines,  the  common 

1  Jugements  et  D&lib.,  vol.  i,  p.  531.  The  high  respect  in  which  Talon 
was  held  was  even  better  shown  in  the  humiliating  punishment  and 
30O-livre  fine  meted  out  to  one  of  his  detractors,  October  i,  1668. 
Ibid.,  p.  518. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  534. 


4I] 


THE  CREATION  AND  EARLY  HISTORY 


liquors  of  the  country,  and  had  obtained  an  ordinance 
from  the  Council  placing  heavy  restrictions  upon  the 
importation  of  these  liquors  as  soon  as  the  brewery 
should  be  completed.1  From  the  end  of  1668  to  Janu- 
ary 2,  1671,  Talon  was  absent  from  the  meetings  of  the 
Sovereign  Council.  While  at  Court  he  obtained  the 
confirmation  of  Louis  XIV  to  the  measure  of  the  Coun- 
cil granting  freedom  of  trade.  Meanwhile  Bishop  Laval, 
defeated  in  the  Council  on  this  matter,  had  made  the 
sale  or  gift  of  liquor  to  the  Indians  a  cas  r&servk,  that  is, 
a  case  for  which  absolution  could  not  be  granted  by  the 
parish  priest,  but  must  be  referred  to  the  bishop  for 
judgment.2  But  the  people  took  their  chances  with  the 
Bishop  and  enjoyed  unrestricted  trade  with  the  Indians, 
and  so  the  matter  rested  during  the  second  term  of  two 
years  that  Talon  served  in  New  France.3 

Jean  Talon's  land  policy  was  alike  successful.  As  an 
example  to  other  seigniors,  he  had  cleared  lands  and 
had  built  up  three  towns.  During  the  last  few  months 
of  his  stay  in  New  France,  Talon  received  letters  patent 
erecting  these  towns  into  a  barony.  It  was  a  proud  day 
when  these  letters  patent  were  registered  in  the  Council, 
and  Talon  received  the  congratulations  of  the  Councillors 
upon  his  title.  He  bade  adieu  to  the  Sovereign  Council 
on  October  17,  1672. 

During  the  years   1666  to   1672    the    personnel  of  the 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  477. 

!  Mand.  des  Ev.  de  Queb,,  vol.  i,  p.  77. 

3  La  Chesnaye  says  that  Talon  asked  permission  to  return  to  France 
because  of  difficulties  with  Courcelles,  and  that  a  recurrence  of  similar 
disagreements  with  Frontenac  resulted  in  his  leaving  for  France  with- 
out the  royal  permission.  Nothing  so  unceremonious  happened.  In  a 
letter  dated  May  15,  1669,  the  King  gave  him  permission  to  return  to 
France  at  the  expiration  of  two  years.  Supplement  Canadian  Archives 
Report,  1899,  p.  247. 


42          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [42 

Council  had  changed  somewhat.  Auteuil  and  La  Ferte 
had  been  dropped  in  1666  and  had  been  replaced  by 
Gorribon  and  La  Tesserie,  and  in  1668  Mouchy  had  been 
made  deputy  Attorney-General  in  the  absence  of  Bour- 
don. The  death  of  Gorribon  in  1669  and  the  dismissal 
of  Villeray  resulted  in  the  advancement  of  Mouchy  to  be 
Councillor  and  in  the  appointment  of  Dupont  as  Coun- 
cillor and  of  Lotbiniere  as  deputy  Attorney-General. 
This  is  the  Council,  consisting  of  Tilly,  Damours,  La 
Tesserie,  Dupont,  and  Mouchy,  Councillors,  Lotbiniere, 
Attorney-General,  and  Peuvret,  clerk,  that  met  Septem- 
ber 17,  1672,  to  listen  to  the  inaugural  address  of  Louis 
de  Baude  comte  de  Paluan  et  de  Frontenac. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT 

THE  entrance  of  Count  Frontenac  into  the  Sovereign 
Council  meant  additional  pomp  and  ceremony.  The  little 
court  took  on  some  of  the  aspects  of  the  Parlement  of 
Paris.  As  representative  of  the  greatest  monarch  of 
Europe,  Frontenac  opened  the  meeting  of  September  17, 
1672  with  a  speech  "  from  the  throne  ".  After  thanking 
the  Councillors  for  the  courtesies  of  his  reception,  he  dwelt 
upon  the  glorious  victories  of  His  Majesty's  arms  in  the 
war  with  Holland.  "  All  these  prodigies,"  he  continued, 
"  which  are  almost  unexampled,  ought  to  increase  the  love 
and  veneration  that  we  should  have  for  this  Incomparable 
Monarch,  whom  we  see  to  be  so  visibly  favored  by  God; 
and  they  ought  to  urge  us  more  and  more  into  giving 
greater  proofs  of  our  obedience  and  fidelity. 

"  Although  in  this  regard  His  Majesty  has  never  had 
cause  to  doubt,  he  has  nevertheless  commanded  me  that  on 
my  arrival  in  this  country,  I  should  have  you  take  a  new 
oath  at  my  hands,  and  that  I  should  urge  you  to  acquit  your- 
selves of  the  duties  of  your  office  with  every  sort  of  vigi- 
lance and  integrity.  It  is  through  justice  that  the  best 
established  states  are  preserved,  and  those  which  have  just 
been  born  have  still  more  need  that  it  be  quickly  and  care- 
fully rendered.  This  is  why,  Messieurs,  you  ought  to  use 
your  best  endeavors  to  respond  to  the  intentions  of  His 
Majesty,  since  it  is  one  of  the  things  which  may  contribute 
43]  43 


44          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [44 

most  to  the  progress  of  the  colony,  the  growth  of  which  he 
so  strongly  desires. 

"  For  myself  I  shall  try  to  give  you  an  example  of  it  by 
being  no  respecter  of  persons,  by  always  protecting  the 
poor  and  feeble  against  those  who  wish  to  oppress  them, 
and  by  carefully  seeking  means  to  procure  the  advantage 
and  satisfaction  of  those  whom  I  see  to  be  intent  upon  the 
good  of  the  country  and  the  service  of  His  Majesty."  r 

The  Governor  then  administered  the  oath  to  the  Coun- 
cillors, who  sometime  later  marched  in  solemn  procession 
to  the  church  of  Notre  Dame,  to  attend  upon  a  Te  Deum, 
sung  in  honor  of  His  Majesty's  victories  against  the 
Dutch.  To  increase  the  Council's  train  of  attendants,  all 
the  court  ushers  were  ordered  to  be  present  thenceforth  at 
all  ceremonies  and  assemblies  on  pain  of  fine  and  loss  of 
office.2  To  sue  for  Divine  guidance,  mass  was  said  in  an 
adjacent  church  upon  the  days  that  the  Council  met.3  These 
ceremonies  were  designed  to  impress  Councillors  with  the 
dignity  and  responsibility  of  their  office  and  with  the  high 
position  of  Frontenac.  The  Governor  sought  above  all  to 
impress  the  people  with  the  importance  of  the  Sovereign 
Council,  that  they  might  the  more  readily  heed  its  judg- 
ments and  respect  its  members.4 

As  New  France  had  no  Intendant  for  the  next  three 
years,  and  as  Bishop  Laval  was  in  France,  Frontenac  became 
the  undisputed  leader  of  the  Council.  He  filled  vacancies 
with  his  followers  and  reminded  Councillors  in  his  annual 
speech  of  1674  that  their  continuance  in  office  depended 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  689.  2  Ibid. ,  p.  695. 

s  September  5,  1682,  order  to  pay  Messire  Pierre  Thury,  priest,  the 
sum  of  240  livres  for  six  years  that  the  mass  was  said  for  the  Council 
on  the  days  it  assembled.  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  821. 

4  His  instructions  urged  the  principle  upon  Frontenac,  but  left  the 
means  to  be  devised.  See  Documents  of  the  Colonial  History  of  New 
York,  vol.  ix,  p.  88. 


45]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  45 

upon  the  favor  of  the  Governor.1  Accordingly,  for  some 
time  his  wish  was  law. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the  Council  under- 
took the  trial  of  such  a  high  official  as  Jean-Marie  Perrot, 
Governor  of  Montreal,  nephew  of  Jean  Talon,  and  Premier 
Valet  de  Chambre  to  His  Majesty  and  of  such  a  prominent 
ecclesiastic  as  the  Abbe  Fenelon,  a  brother  of  the  great 
Fenelon.  In  both  cases  the  Governor  was  insulted  and  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Council  challenged.  Under  the  leader- 
ship of  its  Chief,  the  Council  was  successful  in  establish- 
ing its  jurisdiction  against  the  most  astute  defense  of  the 
accused. 

Perrot  was  heavily  interested  in  the  fur  trade  and  was 
hand  in  glove  with  those  who  traded  and  hunted  without 
the  license  of  Frontenac,  thus  conniving  at  the  infraction 
of  the  ordinances  of  the  Council.2  In  accordance  with  one 
of  these  ordinances,  the  local  judge  of  Montreal  arrested 
two  coureurs  de  bois,  said  to  have  trading  relations  with 
one  of  her  prominent  citizens,  M.  Carion.  This  man  ef- 
fected the  escape  of  the  prisoners  and  insulted  the  judge. 
Accordingly  Frontenac  sent  the  lieutenant  of  his  guard  to 
arrest  Carion.  Lieutenant  Bizard  should  have  given  Fron- 
tenac's  letters  to  the  Governor  of  Montreal  before  making 
an  arrest  in  his  territory,  but  he  failed  to  do  so  until  after 
the  arrest.  He  was  immediately  confronted  by  Perrot  with 
judge  and  notary  to  investigate  his  conduct.  Having  sim- 
ply obeyed  his  orders,  Bizard  refused  to  be  questioned  and 
was  consequently  imprisoned  over  night.  Next  day  he 
drew  up  a  legal  statement  of  what  had  occurred.  One  of 
the  witnesses  to  this  statement  was  thrown  into  prison  by 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  693. 

2  This  is  Frontenac's  initial  statement,  which  facts  brought  out  in  the 
trial  confirm.     See  Collection  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  ii,  pt. 
i,  p.  212,  et  seq. 


46          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [46 

Perrot  and  kept  there  to  the  detriment  of  his  business;  the 
other  fled  to  Quebec.  Frontenac  ordered  Perrot  to  come  to 
Quebec.  The  latter  being  led  by  the  Abbe  Fenelon  to  think 
that  reconciliation  with  Frontenac  was  possible  complied, 
but  was  immediately  placed  under  arrest.1 

From  January  30,  1674,  until  the  middle  of  November, 
the  Council  persisted  in  the  investigation  of  the  case,  gath- 
ering such  an  array  of  evidence  that  the  King  gave  Perrot 
three  weeks  in  the  Bastille  in  addition  to  the  nine  months  he 
had  suffered  in  a  Quebec  prison. 

More  bitter  and  dramatic  was  the  trial  of  the  Abbe  Fene- 
lon, which  grew  out  of  the  Perrot  affair.  The  case  involved 
the  settlement  of  the  question  whether  or  not  the  Sovereign 
Council  could  try  an  ecclesiastic,  whether  or  not  the  clergy 
were  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  temporal  court.  It 
shows  so  well  the  intricacies  of  a  legal  battle  that  I  include 
it  in  detail  as  follows.  The  Abbe  Fenelon  had  been  largely 
responsible  for  Perrot's  coming  to  Quebec.  After  he  saw 
his  friend  imprisoned  by  Frontenac,  when  he  had  been  led 
to  expect  a  peaceful  settlement,  he  became  very  hostile  to 
the  Governor.  On  Easter  Day  he  preached  a  sermon  on  the 
ideal  magistrate  which  was  aimed  at  Frontenac.  He  in- 
sinuated corruption  in  the  matter  of  the  Indian  trade  and 
referred  to  the  treatment  of  Perrot  and  the  forced  labor 
of  the  people  on  a  recent  expedition  of  the  Governor,  etc.2 

1  For  the  process  of  the  trial  before  the  Council,  see  Appendix  A. 

*  These  subtle  yet  obvious  insinuations  were  couched  in  the  following 
general  terms :  "  That  he  who  is  vested  with  authority  should  not  harass 
the  peoples  who  are  subject  to  him;  but  he  is  bound  to  regard  them  as 
his  children,  and  to  treat  them  as  a  father;  that  he  should  not  disturb 
the  trade  of  the  country,  by  ill-treating  those  who  do  not  give  him  a 
share  in  the  profits  they  may  make;  that  he  should  be  satisfied  with 
honest  gains;  that  he  should  not  trample  upon  the  people  nor  harass 
them  with  forced  labor  on  roads,  which  benefit  none  but  him;  that  he 
should  think  of  something  else  than  providing  himself  with  servile 
creatures  to  sing  his  praises  everywhere,  etc.,  etc."  Coll.  Moreau  St. 
M6ry,  series  F  iii.  vol.  iv,  p.  300. 


47]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  47 

This  sermon  created  a  furore.  Information  and  declara- 
tions were  gathered  from  ten  witnesses  as  early  as  May  2. 
In  the  beginning  the  Abbe  had  no  clerical  backing,  for  on 
May  1 6  the  priests  of  the  Seminary  of  Montreal  expressed 
their  regret  at  his  conduct.  Fenelon  had  not  been  content 
with  preaching  his  anti-Frontenac  sermon  but  had  gone 
about  collecting  favorable  declarations  from  certain  inhabi- 
tants of  Montreal  respecting  the  government  of  Perrot 
The  Council  appointed  Tilly  and  Dupont  to  be  commission- 
ers in  this  matter.  These  commissioners  called  upon  the 
Abbe  to  produce  these  declarations  and  the  original  of  his 
sermon.  He  answered  that  he  did  not  recognize  in  the 
Council,  which  was  the  mere  creature  of  Frontenac,  the 
power  to  compel  him  to  produce  his  sermon.1  After  ignor- 
ing two  summonses  to  appear  before  the  Council,  he  finally 
came  to  the  meeting  of  August  21  where  he  behaved  in  the 
most  turbulent  manner.2  He  was  held  a  close  prisoner  in 

1  These  early  stages  in  the  trial  are  described  in  Coll.  Moreau  St. 
Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  i,  p.  308,  et  seq.;  349-352;  352  et  seq.\ 
280  et  seq. 

*  The  record  of  this  meeting  in  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  817-819, 
is  well  summarized  by  Kingsford,  vol.  i,  p.  428.  On  entering  the  Abbe 
Fenelon  proceeded  to  take  a  seat.  The  Governor  told  him  that  he  must 
remain  standing.  Fenelon  replied  that  he  could  not  act  in  disregard 
of  his  privileges  as  an  ecclesiastic,  and  sat  down  at  the  end  of  the 
table.  He  claimed  also  the  right  to  sit  covered.  The  Governor  replied 
that  there  was  a  distinction  between  ecclesiastics  summoned  to  give 
evidence  and  those  arraigned  for  crime.  Fenelon  replied  by  placing  his 
hat  upon  his  head.  He  then  walked  up  and  down  the  room  and  said 
his  pretended  crime  was  in  the  head  of  the  Governor,  and  was  without 
foundation.  The  Governor,  for  the  third  time,  explained  that  the 
Council  in  no  way  desired  to  attack  the  privileges  of  the  clergy,  as  they 
existed  in  France,  and  that  which  was  now  asked  was  only  what  was 
customary  there,  and  that  Fenelon  ought  not  to  be  deficient  in  respect 
to  the  head  of  the  Council.  Upon  this  remark,  Fenelon  replaced  his 
hat  which  he  had  temporarily  removed,  and  answered  that  the  Gov- 
ernor should  not  be  deficient  in  respect  to  his  character  as  an  eccles- 
iastic. Fenelon  was  requested  to  leave  the  room. 


48          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [48 

his  lodgings  under  charge  of  an  usher  of  the  court.  On  the 
23rd,  he  was  again  arraigned  before  the  court.  He  pro- 
tested that  the  Bishop  alone  had  the  right  to  try  him.  In 
the  absence  of  Bishop  Laval,  the  Council  asked  the  Vicar 
General  to  serve  as  clerical  representative,  in  order  that 
Fenelon  might  enjoy  full  justice.  A  dispute  arose,  how- 
ever, as  to  how  this  official  should  be  received  and  where 
he  should  sit.  On  the  29th,  the  Council  refused  him  the 
Bishop's  place  at  the  Council  board.1  On  September  4  it 
was  hard  to  see  how  the  matter  would  terminate,  Fenelon 
insisting  that  he  recognized  no  other  judges  than  his  eccle- 
siastical superiors,  so  long  as  these  did  not  hand  him  over 
to  the  secular  arm,  and  the  Council  insisting  that  he  make 
his  defence  before  it  and  produce  the  offending  sermon. 
On  the  same  day  he  challenged  Peiras  and  Vitre  in  particu- 
lar because,  as  he  said,  "  they  were  appointed  to  the  Council 
by  M.  de  Frontenac  alone,  without  the  Council;  that  both 
were  the  creatures  of  the  Governor;  without  legal  knowl- 
edge, of  little  intelligence,  etc."  2  The  Council  responded 
to  this  attack  by  appointing  two  others  to  fill  the  places  of 
those  challenged. 

Four  entries  concerning  the  case  appear  under  date  of 
September  5,  the  written  work  so  exhausting  the  Abbe 
Fenelon  that  he  asked  for  delay,  which  was  granted.  He 
challenged  those  who  replaced  Peiras  and  Vitre  and  the 
Governor  appointed  Villeray  and  Auteuil  as  commissioners 
to  pass  upon  these  challenges.  On  September  7,  Fenelon 
challenged  these  commissioners  also,  but  the  Council  dis- 
regarded his  objections.  On  the  loth  the  Council  thus 
constituted  considered  the  prisoners  exceptions  to  Peiras 
and  Vitre  and  to  the  Governor.  Frontenac  briefly  explained 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  821,  824,  829. 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  i,  pp.  487,  490,  492, 
494,  496,  503. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT 


49 


the  misconstruction  put  upon  his  actions  by  the  Abbe  Fene- 
lon.  He  added  that  he  could  not  be  recognized  as  a  party 
to  a  criminal  suit  because  Fenelon  might  evade  punishment 
by  challenging  Councillors  on  the  ground  that  his  enemy 
had  appointed  them.1  The  Council  doubted  this  statement. 
Article  XVI,  section  24,  of  the  Great  Ordinance  of  1667, 
it  was  argued,  provided  that  no  president  of  a  court  should 
serve  as  such  in  any  case  in  which  he  was  challenged  ;  that 
in  case  of  an  order  for  further  examination  of  the  case, 
the  process  of  the  suit  should  be  reported  by  one  of  the 
other  presidents  or  judges.2  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the 
Governor  as  president  of  the  Sovereign  Council  could  be 
successfully  challenged.  The  Council  voted  to  ask  the  King 
whether  he  intended  this  article  to  apply  to  his  Governor 
and  lieutenant  general  in  New  France  and  if  a  suit  by  Fene- 
lon against  Frontenac  could  be  entertained.3  This  action 
marks  the  beginning  of  an  independent  attitude  towards 
the  Governor. 

In  the  afternoon  session  the  Governor  urged  the  Council 
to  take  some  step  in  regard  to  Fenelon's  accusation  that  he 
had  prevented  a  free  vote  in  the  Council.  Upon  his  with- 

1  "  Personne  ne  peut  ny  ne  doibt  estre  receu  a  le  prendre  a  partie 
lorsqu'il  agit  du  Service  du  Roy  ou  de  1'Interest  public,  Et  que  si  Ton 
y  estoit  receu,  ce  seroit  un  moyen  a  ceux  qui  commettent  des  crimes 
d'en  Esluder  la  punition  en  proposant  des  moyens  de  recusation  centre 
les  officiers  du  Conseil  qui  jusques  icy  ont  este  par  luy  nommez  ou 
continues."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  842. 

*  "  ce  que  nous  voulons  avoir  aussi  lieu  a  1'egard  de  celui  qui  presidera 
en  1'audience,  nonobstant  1'usage  ou  abus  introduit  en  aucunes  de  nos 
cours  ou  le  president  reccuse  rec.oit  les  avis,  et  pronounce  le  jugement, 
ce  que  nous  abrogeons  en  toutes  cours,  jurisdictions  et  justices:  et  en 
cas  d'appointment,  1'instance  sera  contribute  par  celui  des  autres  pre- 
sidens  ou  juges  a  qui  la  distribution  appartiendra."  Edits  et  Ord., 
vol.  i,  p.  180. 

3  "  Et  si  en  consequence  il  peut  estre  pris  a  partie  par  le  diet  sieur  de 
fenelon  aux  cas  susdicts  suivant  la  dicte  requeste  et  moyens  portez  par 
icelle."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  843. 


50          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [50 

drawal,  that  body  argued  over  the  matter  until  nightfall 
and  adjourned  to  meet  at  seven  o'clock  the  next  morning. 
On  September  1 1  the  Council  finally  promised  that  it  would 
pass  upon  Fenelon's  accusation  before  the  departure  of 
the  vessels  for  France.  Two  weeks  later  Villeray  began  to 
be  disaffected.  He  begged  to  be  excused  from  judging  the 
Abbe,  because  of  his  obligation  to  Talon,  the  uncle  of 
Perrot,  whose  champion  was  the  accused  in  this  case.1  He 
was  permitted  to  retire  on  October  22.  However,  increased 
folly  on  Fenelon's  part  caused  a  reaction  against  him.  A 
petition  for  a  writ  of  error  (d'apel  comme  d'abuz)  was  de- 
clared to  be  impertinent  and  unreasonable.  His  refusal  to 
pay  the  usher  for  his  maintenance  was  met  by  a  peremptory 
order  from  the  Council.2 

The  Council,  having  now  been  reduced  to  three  unchal- 
lenged members,  was  unable  to  consider  the  most  recent 
petition  of  the  Abbe.3  On  October  29,  the  Governor  re- 
minded the  Council  of  its  promise  of  September  n,  and 
Frontenac  having  retired,  the  court  declared  unanimously 
that  the  Governor  had  not  sought  to  bend  it  to  his  will  or 
to  interfere  with  freedom  of  voting.4  The  whole  mass 
of  records  of  this  trial  was  sent  to  France  with  Fene- 
lon  and  Perrot  about  the  middle  of  November.  While  the 
Council  never  succeeded  in  making  Fenelon  produce  his  ser- 
mon and  petition,  about  the  criminality  of  which  the  real 
trial  would  have  centred,  yet  its  jurisdiction  over  eccle- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  850. 

1  "  que  le  diet  sieur  de  fenelon  sera  contrainct  par  toutes  voyes  deues 
et  raisonnables  au  payement  de  la  dicte  somme  de  trente  sept  livres." 
Ibid.,  p.  869. 

*Ibid.,  p.  871. 

4  Le  Conseil  "  declare  unanimement  qu'il  n'a  point  este  cognu  que  le 
diet  Seigneur  Gouverneur  aye  voulu  persuader  quoyque  ce  soit,  ny 
empesche  la  liberte  des  suffrages  de  personnes  de  la  compagnie."  Ibid.. 
p.  878. 


5 1 ]         THE  SO VEREIGN  CO UNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  5  j 

siastics  was  successfully  asserted.  While  unable  to  try, 
him  on  the  charge  of  inciting  to  sedition,  it  had  patiently 
collected  enough  evidence  to  influence  Louis  XIV  to  pro- 
hibit the  Abbe  Fenelon's  return  to  New  France. 

Yet  Councillors  felt  that  this  measure  of  success  was 
bought  at  a  considerable  price.  They  were  growing  rest- 
less at  the  leadership  of  the  Governor.  He  had  put  pressure 
upon  them  during  the  Fenelon  trial,  and  they  resented  it. 
He  had  insisted  upon  taking  a  very  active  part  in  a  case  in 
which  he  was  the  injured  party.  He  had  forced  Councillors 
to  vote  whether  or  not  he  had  intimidated  them  or  influ- 
enced their  votes.  They  felt  that  they  could  never  act  with 
the  proper  impartiality  and  independence  as  long  as  the  Gov- 
ernor could  remove  them  from  office  in  case  they  did  not 
do  his  will.  They  therefore  sought  royal  commissions, 
which  they  obtained  in  the  following  way. 

Villeray  and  Auteuil  had  re-entered  the  Council  as  sub- 
stitute judges  during  the  trials  of  1674,  and  anxious  to 
enjoy  their  old  positions,  had  gone  over  the  head  of  the 
Governor  by  persuading  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies 
to  nominate  them  to  the  King,  making  representation  that 
the  Council  was  too  small  in  number.  Accordingly,  on  Oc- 
tober 2  and  3,  1674,  royal  commissions  were  registered 
making  Lotbiniere  a  Councillor,  and  Auteuil  Attorney-Gen- 
eral.1 At  the  same  time,  various  letters  from  the  King  and 
West  India  Company  showed  that  Villeray  had  been  given  a 
commission  as  First  Councillor,  although  the  document 
itself  did  not  appear.2  The  Council  agreed  to  seat  him  as 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  856-862. 

1  Villeray  received  this  appointment  by  impressing  the  minister  with 
his  commercial  activity;  for  on  May  17,  1674,  Colbert  wrote  Frontenac 
that  Villeray  of  all  Canadians  applied  himself  most  to  commerce,  send- 
ing his  vessels  to  trade  with  the  Islands  of  America.  Frontenac  replied 
that  the  minister  was  deceived,  for  Villeray  had  not  even  a  bark  on  the 
St.  Lawrence,  far  less,  vessels  trading  with  the  Antilles.  (Clement) 
Lettres,  Instructions  et  Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  580. 


52 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 


an  ordinary  Councillor  until  the  arrival  of  the  belated  com- 
mission; but  Villeray  angrily  refused  to  attend  until  he 
could  do  so  in  the  capacity  of  First  Councillor.1  The  other 
Councillors  besought  the  Governor  to  write  to  the  Court 
for  similar  commissions  for  them.  Frontenac  did  so  to  his 
own  detriment,2  for  September  23,  1675,  tne  day  on  which 
these  commissions  were  registered  and  Councillors  be- 
came independent  of  the  Governor,  marked  the  real  begin- 
ning of  the  decline  of  his  influence  in  the  Sovereign  Council. 
A  second  cause  of  the  decline  of  the  Governor's  power 
at  this  time  was  the  arrival  of  Bishop  Laval  and  Intendant 
Duchesneau,  whom  the  King  had  sent  to  New  France  to 
check  Frontenac's  domineering  attitude  towards  the  Coun- 
cil. The  new  Intendant  began  at  once  to  win  over  Coun- 
cillors. From  January  until  May,  he  worked  with  them 
each  Monday  afternoon  upon  police  regulations,  which 
finally  appeared  as  forty-two  ordinances.3  Meanwhile,  in 
the  morning  sessions,  the  Intendant  acted  as  president,  in- 
troducing much  business  and  signing  the  minutes.  An  oc- 
casional flash  of  arrogance  showed  that  Frontenac  regretted 
the  loss  of  functions  which  he  had  previously  exercised  in 
the  Council.  Still  he  was  just  as  interested  as  before  in  up- 

1  There  is  evidence  that  Frontenac  disliked  Villeray.  In  1673,  under 
pretext  of  being  an  adherent  of  the  Jesuits,  he  had  deprived  him  of 
the  post  of  collecting  the  ten  per  cent  duty,  entrusted  him  by  the  Com- 
pany. Now  it  was  upon  his  advice  that  the  Council  acted.  He  said 
"  qu'il  n'estime  pas  se  pouvoir  dispenser  .  pour  un  manquement  de 
formalite  et  un  oubly  qui  peut  estre  arrive  par  accident  et  par  negligence 
de  les  executer,  Et  de  leur  declarer  qu'ils  ayent  a  restablir  conforme- 
ment  aux  diets  ordres  le  diet  sieur  de  Villeray  dans  la  charge  de 
premier  Conseiller  ".  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  860. 

1  See  Frontenac's  speech  of  January  1675  :  "  Messieurs,  La  Commission 
que  j'ay  bien  voulu  prendre  a  vos  prieres  en  me  chargeant  d'ecrire 
a  la  Cour  pour  faire  obtenir  de  Sa  Majeste  des  provisions  de  vous 
charges,"  etc.  Ibid.,  p.  889. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  63-73. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  53 

holding  the  jurisdiction  and  dignity  of  that  court,  when 
he  considered  it  to  be  threatened  by  the  ecclesiastical  power. 
It  was  upon  his  advice  that  Father  Morel,  having  repeatedly 
refused  to  appear  before  the  Council,  was  seized  and  lodged 
in  the  Chateau  St.  Louis.1  The  ecclesiastics  claimed  the 
right  to  try  the  prisoner,  and  showed  such  convincing  titles 
to  their  ecclesiastical  court  (officialty),  that  the  Council  sur- 
rendered him  and  recognized  the  court — recognized  that 
there  was  one  class  of  persons,  who  might  escape  jus- 
tice at  its  hands. 

Meanwhile  the  Council  exerted  itself  to  better  effect  in 
maintaining  its  preeminent  position  in  church.  On  the 
Feast  of  the  Purification  of  the  Virgin,  it  had  been  humili- 
ated by  the  church  wardens  who  had  been  given  prece- 
dence, and  accordingly,  on  March  4,  1675,  ordained  that 
officers  of  justice  should  be  given  places  next  after  the 
Governor  or  seigniors,  and  that  whenever  present  officially, 
they  should  receive  the  pain  benit  (or  eulogiae),  the  pax, 
the  incense,  the  tapers,  and  so  forth,  immediately  after 
them.2  A  month  later,  the  Council  suggested  that  it  receive 
these  next  after  the  clergy  from  the  hands  of  the  officiating 
priest  rather  than  from  the  beadle.  The  Grand  Vicar 
agreed  and  the  Council  was  thenceforth  given  honorable 
treatment  in  the  churches  of  Quebec. 

But  there  was  trouble  in  other  communities  about  the  de- 
cree of  March  4.  On  April  22,  the  Governor  produced  a 
report  of  the  captain  of  the  seigniory  of  Lauson,  confirmed 
by  a  legal  statement  made  by  an  usher  of  the  Sovereign 
Council,  to  the  effect  that  the  parish  priest  and  church 
wardens  in  that  place  had  rebelled.  Peiras  was  com- 
missioned to  gather  additional  information.  Other  unpleas- 
antness had  caused  the  matter  to  be  referred  to  the  King 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  948-949.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  904,  922. 


54          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [54 

for  settlement.  Pending  that  decision,  the  ecclesiastics  of 
Montreal  gave  the  church  wardens  precedence  of  the  judi- 
cial functionary  of  that  place  at  the  Feast  of  the  Purifica- 
tion of  the  Virgin  in  1677.  In  retaliation  the  Council  or- 
dered that  the  wardens  be  deprived  of  all  honors  until  the 
arrival  of  the  vessels  from  France  by  which  the  King's 
will  should  be  known.  A  fine  of  300  livres  was  to  be  laid 
upon  any  warden  who  received  any  church  honors  until 
that  time.1 

In  1676  the  King  had  written  to  Frontenac  that  members 
of  the  Sovereign  Council  (and  officers  of  justice  in  Mon- 
treal, etc.)  should  take  precedence  of  the  church  wardens, 
when  they  were  in  a  body  and  on  solemn  occasions,  but  not 
under  ordinary  circumstances.2  In  1677  tne  vessels  brought 
a  letter  from  the  minister  to  Duchesneau  to  the  effect  that 
the  Bishop  had  the  right  of  offering  incense  to  all  the  mem- 
bers of  his  clergy  before  offering  it  to  the  Councillors  even 
though  present  in  a  body.8  This  did  not,  however,  affect 
the  position  of  the  Council  as  regards  church  wardens.  The 
Council  had  practically  won  its  contention,  and  its  dignity 
in  church  ceremonies  was  thenceforth  assured. 

Yet  it  was  difficult  for  the  Council  to  follow  a  course  in- 
dependent of  ecclesiastical  or  of  commercial  influence.  The 
Intendant  was  warned  by  the  minister  against  the  Bishop. 
The  Bishop,  he  wrote,  was  assuming  an  authority  a  little 
too  independent;  it  would  perhaps  be  well  that  he  should 
not  have  a  seat  in  the  Council.  The  Intendant  was  to  seek 
every  opportunity,  and  on  all  occasions  to  take  every  means 
practicable,  to  wean  the  Bishop  from  the  craving  for  attend- 
ing the  Council.  Far  from  doing  as  directed,  Duchesneau 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  116. 

'King  to  Frontenac,  April  15,  1676.    Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series 
F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  ii,  p.  773. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  20. 


55]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  55 

became  a  friend  and  supporter  of  the  Bishop.  In  the  spring 
of  1677  the  King  instructed  Frontenac  to  point  out  to 
Duchesneau  that  he  was  too  eager  to  follow  the  advice 
of  the  clergy.1  But  no  correction  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernor had  apparently  been  accepted;  for  Duchesneau,  upon 
his  own  responsibility,  regulated  the  tithes  in  a  way  very 
favorable  to  the  clergy.  He  ordered  that  no  Huguenots 
should  remain  in  Canada  during  the  winter.2  Moreover, 
he  used  his  influence  in  favor  of  the  Bishop,  when  the 
latter's  policy  of  chastising  those  who  traded  with  the  In- 
dians forced  him  into  an  unpopular  position. 

The  Bishop,  for  example,  had  ordered  his  parish  priests 
to  refuse  absolution  to  such  traders.3  In  several  cases  scenes 
of  violence  attended  such  refusals.  The  Council  investi- 
gated these  cases,  but  refused  to  prosecute  a  priest  or  to 
involve  the  Bishop.  The  most  interesting  case  is  that  of 
the  trader  Francois  Noir  Rolland,  of  Isle  Mont  Royal,  who 
was  refused  absolution  by  his  priest,  Father  Guyotte,  after 
making  his  Easter  confession  in  1676.  Hearing  that  Father 
Guyotte  was  about  to  denounce  him  for  not  making  his 
Easter  Communion,  Rolland  sought  out  the  Jesuit  Father 
Fremin,  who  expressed  satisfaction  with  the  state  of  his 
soul  and  gave  him  a  letter  to  his  priest.  A  complicated 

1  A  letter  from  the  King  to  Frontenac,  written  in  1678,  is  typical  of 
the  correspondence  during  these  years.    "  Quoyque  je  ne  doubte  pas 
que  tous  les  Ecclesiastiques  ne  se  contiennent  dans  1'estendue  de  leur 
pouvoir,  je  ne  laisse  pas  de  vous  dire,  que  mon  Conseil   Souverain, 
auquel  vous  presidez,  doubt  toujours  donner  un  soin  particulier  a  ce 
qu'il  ne  soit  rien  entrepris  centre  mon  autorite  ny  celle  de  mon  justice. 

"  Le  mesme  Conseil  doit  aussy  tenir  la  main  que  les  dixmes  soient 
regulierement  payees  aux  Ecclesiastiques  sur  le  pied  de  reglement  qui 
en  a  este  cy  devant  fait  comme  Chef  et  President  de  mon  Conseil  Sou- 
verain exciter  les  officiers  qui  le  composent  a  la  rendre  bonne  et  briefve 
[justice]."  Archives  des  Co  onies,  series  B,  vol.  vii,  pp.  188-189. 

2  Ordinance  of  May  n,  1676.    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  72. 
*  Mandements  des  Eveques  de  Quebec,  vol.  i,  pp.  77,  82,  88. 


56          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [56 

situation  developed,  the  result  of  which  was  that  the  priest 
interrupted  the  celebration  of  mass,  and,  after  a  dialogue 
with  Rolland,  commanded  the  kneeling  worshipers  to  eject 
the  offender.  As  one  excommunicated,  he  was  beaten,  in- 
sulted, and  dragged  by  the  hair  from  the  church.  Rolland 
appealed  to  the  Council,  which,  on  December  19,  commis- 
sioned Lotbiniere  to  go  to  the  scene  of  the  affair  and  to 
make  investigations.  The  trader  did  not  wish  to  sue  his 
assailants  for  damages,  but  seems  to  have  thought  that  the 
Council  could  restore  his  religious  privileges.  Conse- 
quently, having  been  assured  by  the  Bishop  that  his  assail- 
ants would  pay  for  his  trip  to  Quebec,  that  he  might  make 
his  confession  there  and  later  to  the  Jesuit  Father  Fremin, 
Rolland  returned  to  Montreal,  where  he  reported  his  inter- 
view to  the  ecclesiastics.  They  affected  to  discredit  his 
story,  since  the  Bishop  had  not  informed  them  of  his 
promises,  and  refused  him  permission  to  go  to  Father  Fre- 
min for  confession.  Father  Guyotte  induced  his  parish- 
ioners to  sign  a  statement  against  him,  and  from  the  pulpit, 
exhorted  those  who  had  ejected  him  not  to  repent  of  their 
deed.1 

A  second  time  Rolland  came  down  the  ice  to  Quebec,  but 
his  petition  to  the  Council  was  condemned  by  the  Bishop  as 
insulting  and  untrue.  Rolland  was  overwhelmed  at  having 
made  an  enemy  of  the  Bishop  and  besought  the  Court  to 
erase  the  objectionable  terms.  He  said  that  possibly  the 
Bishop  himself  had  not  promised  to  have  him  reimbursed, 
but  he  was  not  ignorant  that  others  had  given  him  such 
assurances.  He  referred  to  Father  Custode,  a  Recollet,  for 
the  truth  of  his  other  statements,  since  that  ecclesiastic  had 
been  present  during  the  interview.  But  Father  Custode 
asked  to  be  excused  from  testifying  because  as  a  friar  he 

1  Jugements  et  Delib..  vol.  ii,  pp.  97,  103-105. 


57]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  57 

was  dead  civilly  and  could  not  give  evidence  in  a  law  court, 
nor  according  to  canon  law  could  he  depose  against  his 
Bishop.  Furthermore,  he  could  not  divulge  what  he  had 
learned  in  the  secrecy  of  the  Bishop's  closet.  The  witness 
evidently  had  damaging  evidence  to  give.  Undoubtedly 
Laval  had  tried  to  buy  off  Rolland  with  promises  which  he 
did  not  care  to  acknowledge,  since  such  promises  meant  dis- 
avowal of  a  priest  who  was  acting  in  accordance  with  the 
episcopal  policy.  Led  by  Duchesneau,  the  Council  avoided 
any  such  revelation  by  excusing  Father  Custode  from  tes- 
tifying and  by  erasing  the  Bishop's  promises  from  Holland's 
petition.1 

With  the  same  show  of  tenderness,  the  priest,  who  had 
ordered  the  attack  upon  Rolland,  was  not  even  summoned ; 
although  his  agents  were  prosecuted  throughout  the  spring 
and  summer  of  i677.2  While  a  certain  Quesneuille  was 
fined  100  livres  for  inducing  the  people  to  sign  another  pe- 
tition against  Rolland,  the  author  was  simply  ordered  to 
confine  all  future  petitions  to  purely  religious  matters. 
Nevertheless  from  France  came  encouragement  to  deal 
impartially  with  such  cases  in  the  future.  King  and  min- 
ister berated  Duchesneau  for  partiality  to  the  Bishop  and 
directed  the  Sovereign  Council  to  keep  the  clergy  within 
bounds.3 

As  this  trial  illustrates,  Frontenac's  influence  in  the 
Council  was  weakening.4  There  seems  to  have  been  a  con- 
certed effort  during  the  next  few  years  to  cut  him  off  from 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  108.  *  Ibid.,  p.  133. 

8  King  to  Frontenac,  May  12,  1678  and  Minister  to  Duchesneau,  May 
15.    Supplement  to  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for  1899,  p.  262. 

4  His  advice  that  Rolland's  assaillant  should  appear  and  justify  his 
conduct  was  ignored.    "  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  a  este  d'advis  .  . 
que  le  dit  S  Guyotte  y  sera  mande  pour  luy  ouy  estre  ordonne  ce  quc 
de  raison."    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  133. 


58          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [58 

active  participation  in  its  deliberations.  The  Governor  had 
lost  the  power  to  appoint  Councillors,  harangue  them  and 
administer  the  oath  of  office.  During  1679  the  Council 
forced  him  to  dispense  with  the  title  of  "  Chief  and  Presi- 
dent ",  and  some  time  later  established  the  right  of  its 
eldest  Councillor  to  act  as  vice-president.  Thenceforth  the 
Governor  never  served  as  president  either  when  the  Intend- 
ant  was  present  or  absent.  It  only  remained  for  the  Coun- 
cil to  assert  its  right  to  act  against  his  advice  and  to  bring 
him  within  its  jurisdiction  by  considering  petitions  against 
him,  unembarrassed  by  his  presence,  to  reduce  the  Governor 
to  the  position  of  an  ordinary  Councillor.  This  was  the 
tendency  of  the  long  disputes,  which  occupied  the  Council 
for  weeks  at  a  time,  to  the  exclusion  of  ordinary  affairs. 
The  more  important  ones  will  be  given  in  detail. 

In  1679  a  dispute  arose  as  to  the  respective  titles  to  be 
given  to  the  Governor  and  the  Intendant  in  the  minutes 
and  registers  of  the  Council.  The  Governor  had  had  oc- 
casion to  look  over  some  old  minutes  and  had  been  reminded 
that  he  was  no  longer  styled  "  Chief  and  President  of  the 
Council  ".  He  therefore  ordered  Peuvret  du  Mesnu,  the 
clerk  of  the  Council,  to  return  to  the  old  formula.  In  the 
minutes  of  February  20,  1679,  the  Governor  is  described  in 
these  terms,  while  the  Intendant  is  spoken  of  as  functioning 
also  in  the  capacity  of  president,  in  accordance  with  the 
declaration  of  the  King  of  June  5,  1675. *  This  declaration, 
which  was  issued  by  the  King  as  a  confirmation  of  the 
powers  of  the  Council  when  he  withdrew  Canada  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies  in  1675, 

l"  La  Cour  Assemblee  ou  astoient  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  chef  et 
president  d'icelle,  Monsieur  de  Bernieres  grand  vicar  de  Monsieur 
1'Evesque  de  cette  ville  de  Quebec,  Monsieur  1'Intendant  faisant  aussi 
fonction  de  president  suivant  la  declaration  du  Roy  du  cine  juin  1675." 
Ibid.,  p.  277. 


59]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  59 

provided  that  the  Intendant,  although  below  Governor  and 
Bishop  in  point  of  dignity,  should  perform  the  functions 
of  acting  president  in  the  Council.1  Unfortunately  for  the 
peace  of  the  Council,  the  commission  of  the  Intendant  failed 
to  provide  that  he  should  serve  as  president  during  the 
presence  of  the  Governor.2  On  the  other  hand,  royal 
despatches  of  April  15,  1676,  and  May  12,  1678,  and  a 
memoir  of  May  24,  1678,  make  mention  of  the  Governor  as 
"  Chief  and  President  of  the  Council  ".3 

At  the  third  meeting  of  the  Council  which  he  attended 
upon  his  installation  in  1675,  Duchesneau  had  ordered  Peu- 
vret  du  Mesnu  to  use  the  words  "  Chef  du  Conseil  "  after 
Frontenac's  name  in  the  minutes  and  had  sent  him  with  a 
note  to  this  effect  to  Frontenac,  who  refused  the  proposal. 
Duchesneau  had  persisted  and  the  poor  clerk  had  been  run- 
ning to  and  fro  between  the  two  until  his  departure  for 
France.4  Becquet  then  became  clerk.  For  three  months 
he  had  kept  the  minute  books  at  the  house  of  the  Intendant, 
where  he  roomed,  and  the  Governor  asserted  that  he  had 
not  seen  the  headings  of  the  minutes  during  the  two  years 
that  Peuvret  du  Mesnu  was  away.  Duchesneau  contradicted 

1  "  que  1'intendant  .  .  .  aura  la  troisieme  place  comme  president  du 
dit  Conseil,  demande  les  avis,  recueille  les  voix  et  pronounce  les  arrets 
et  ait  au  surplus  les  memes  functions  et  jeuisse  les  meme*  avantages  que 
les  premiers  presidents  de  nos  cours."    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  84. 

2  It  simply  stated  as  his  duty :  "  presider  au  Conseil   Souverain  en 
1'absence  du  dit  sieur  de  Frontenac  " ;  "  que  le  Conseil  Souverain  auquel 
vous  presiderez  ainsi  que  dit  est ",  etc.,  etc.    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  42. 

*  "  Comme  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  est  chef  et  president  du  Conseil 
Souverain,  il  doit  tenir  la  main  a  ce  que  la  justice  soit  bien  rendue  bien 
examinee  et  bien  establie " ;  "  que  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  doit  aussi 
.  .  .  comme  chef  et  president  du  dit  Conseil  exciter  les  officiers  qui  le 
composent  a  rendre  la  [justice]  bonne  et  briefve".  Jugem'.nts  et 
Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  313. 

4  See  the  account  of  Peuvret  du  Mesnu,  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii, 
p.  281. 


6o          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [60 

Frontenac  flatly  by  saying  that  he  must  have  seen  the  min- 
utes, since  he  presided  in  the  Intendant's  absence  and  signed 
the  records  of  the  meetings.  The  Governor  had  been  con- 
tent for  over  three  and  a  half  years  with  the  title  of  "  Chef 
du  Conseil  ",  which  had  early  been  agreed  upon.  Frontenac 
claimed  that  it  had  not  been  definitely  settled,  and  the  clerk 
confirmed  his  view  of  the  matter.1  These  conflicting  state- 
ments were  confusing  to  the  members  of  the  Council,  but  a 
detailed  list  of  the  minute  headings,  made  by  the  Intendant 
from  the  record,  enlightened  them.  There  had  been  no  fixed 
practice.  Peuvret,  Becquet,  the  first  usher  Roger,  and  again 
Peuvret,  had  in  turn  served  as  clerk.  These  scribes  had 
written :  Monsieur  the  Governor,  President  of  the  Council, 
Monsieur  the  Intendant  also  functioning  as  President  of  the 
Council ;  or  simply  Governor  and  Intendant.  When  the 
Governor  was  absent,  the  Intendant  was  several  times 
spoken  of  as  presiding  over  the  Council,  and  once,  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  Council ;  or  when  the  Intendant  was  absent,  the 
Governor  was  mentioned  as  presiding.  On  February  6, 
1679,  the  clerk  gave  the  Governor  the  title  of  "  Chief  of  the 
Council  ",  and  on  the  2Oth  enlarged  it  to  "  Chief  and  Presi- 
dent of  the  Council  ".2  Thus  Frontenac  temporarily  gained 
his  point 

The  Intendant  claimed  that  this  formula  was  an  innova- 
tion. On  March  7  the  Governor  presented  his  despatches 
while  the  Intendant  cited  the  royal  declaration  as  mention- 
ing only  one  president  of  the  Council,  that  is,  himself.  On 
March  20  the  Council  passed  a  decree  requesting  Governor 
and  Intendant  to  waive  the  question  of  title  until  the  King 
should  rule  concerning  it.  Meanwhile,  in  the  minutes,  they 

1  Minutes  of  March  3  and  4.  16/9.    Ibid.,  pp.  279-288. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  284-285. 


6i]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  6 1 

were  to  appear  simply  as  Governor  and  Intendant.1  The  In- 
tendant  acquiesced,  on  the  ground  that  the  administration 
of  justice  had  suffered  during  the  disputes;  but  the  Gover- 
nor, although  he  knew  that  the  decree  had  been  unanimously 
passed,  refused  to  accede  to  it.  He  exhorted  the  Councillors 
to  deliberate  again  upon  the  subject  and  not  oblige  him  to 
have  recourse  to  the  authority  which  the  King  had  put  into 
his  hands  to  have  his  wishes  executed,  since  he  would  not 
be  sorry  to  make  use  of  that  last  road  after  having  hitherto 
employed  the  road  of  persuasion,  of  gentleness,  of  re- 
monstrance.2 

Thus  the  issue  was  joined.  The  Council  held  to  its  arret 
referring  the  matter  to  the  King  for  settlement,  while  the 
Governor  attempted  to  wrench  the  title  he  desired  from  the 
Council  by  force.  On  March  24,  the  Council  decreed  that 
the  Governor  be  requested  again  to  uphold  it.  On  March 
27,  Frontenac  declared  in  the  King's  name  that  henceforth 
the  Council  must  give  him  the  same  treatment  and  the 
same  titles  that  it  pleased  the  King  to  accord  him.  He  or- 
dered the  clerk  to  entitle  him  "  Chief  and  President  of  the 
Council  "  in  all  minutes  and  registers  for  the  last  three  and 
a  half  years.3  The  Intendant  supported  the  position  that 
the  Council  had  taken,  claiming  that  the  Governor  was  mas- 
ter of  the  Council  only  on  questions  of  war  and  public 
safety,  and  that  in  this  case  Frontenac  was  opposing  the 
execution  of  two  arrets  that  had  no  concern  with  these 
matters.  Duchesneau  warned  them  that  the  Governor  in- 
tended to  employ  force  to  destroy  justice  utterly,  and  that 
if  the  Council  yielded  now,  its  subserviency  was  assured  for 
the  future,  and  that  it  would  see  itself  forced  to  petition 

1  Jugements  et  Dclib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  299. 
tlbid.,  p.  300. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  305. 


62          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

the  Governor  to  pronounce  as  a  sovereign  upon  all  business 
that  came  before  it1 

By  a  unanimous  vote  the  speeches  of  Governor  and  In- 
tendant  were  referred  to  the  Attorney-General  for  his  con- 
clusions. On  April  n,  Auteuil  was  ready  with  his  report; 
but  he  refused  to  give  it  so  long  as  the  Governor  insisted 
upon  being  present  while  his  claims  were  under  considera- 
tion. The  Governor  insisted  upon  obedience  to  his  order 
of  March  27  and  refused  to  allow  the  subject  of  titles  to  be 
discussed.  A  ridiculous  scene  followed.2  The  Governor 
refused  to  withdraw;  the  Councillors  then  determined  to 
leave  him,  but  they  were  ordered  to  remain.  They  obeyed ; 
but  sat  in  silence  in  the  Council  chamber  until  the  hour  of 
adjournment. 

1  For  a  paraphrase  of  the  significant  parts  of  Duchesneau's  rambling 
speech  of  March  27,  see  Jugements  et  De.ib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  306-307. 

1  The  details  of  this  session  are  very  amusing.  While  the  clerk  was 
copying  the  opinions  of  the  Governor  and  Attorney-General,  the  In- 
tendant  left  the  table  for  the  chimney  seat  and  sent  for  his  favorite 
book.  Frontenac  insisted  upon  proceeding  to  the  affairs  of  justice,  and 
asked  the  Intendant  to  return  and  inquire  if  any  one  had  causes  to 
introduce.  In  answer  to  the  Intendant,  each  Councillor  replied  that 
he  had  such  business  to  present  but  would  wait  until  after  the  con- 
troversy was  settled.  Tilly  offered  his  resignation,  and  so  also  did 
Vitre,  saying  that  he  would  rather  not  be  a  Councillor  than  be  forced 
into  disobedience.  As  it  was  apparent  that  nothing  could  be  done 
that  day,  the  Governor  demanded  that  a  day  be  named  before  the 
spring  recess  on  which  to  judge  private  causes;  but  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral replied  that  the  sowing  had  already  commenced  and  that  it  was 
necessary  to  declare  a  recess  at  once. 

When  it  became  apparent  that  Frontenac  would  not  retire  and  permit 
an  unbiased  decision  upon  his  claims  to  the  title  of  chief  and  president, 
and  that  the  clerk  was  giving  him  that  title,  the  Councillors  rose  to 
leave  the  chamber,  since  they  said  "all  liberty  was  taken  away."  "Upon 
being  ordered  to  remain,"  continues  the  account  of  the  Intendant  and 
Councillors,  "we  took  the  resolution  to  speak  no  longer,  which  was 
carried  out  until  noon,  which  is  the  hour  of  the  end  of  the  Council 
session.  I  attest  all  the  above  to  be  true,"  (signed)  Berniere,  Villeray, 
Tilly,  Damours,  Bermen,  Vitre,  Auteuil.  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery, 
series  F  iii,  vol.  v,  pp.  288,  305,  et  seq. 


63]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  63 

No  agreement  was  arrived  at  in  the  succeeding  sessions 
of  April  17  and  April  24.  Councillors  Tilly  and  Vitre  had 
threatened  to  resign;  and  in  the  meeting  of  April  17  the 
Governor  said  that  Tilly  had  only  to  hand  in  his  commis- 
sion. Tilly  replied  that  he  begged  to  be  allowed  to  keep  it 
as  a  mark  of  the  honor  shown  him  by  the  King.1  At  both 
sessions  the  argument  was  maintained  with  great  spirit  and 
acrimony  until  the  noon  hour,  the  whole  Council  apparently 
being  arrayed  against  Frontenac. 

At  this  juncture,  the  Governor  ceased  to  attend  the  Coun- 
cil meetings  but  ordered  the  clerk  to  bring  him  the  minutes 
after  each  session,  that  he  might  ascertain  whether  or  not 
he  had  been  given  the  title  he  had  ordered.  Even  this  the 
Councillors  and  Attorney-General  opposed  as  an  attempted 
restraint  upon  free  expression  of  opinion  in  the  Council. 
During  this  deadlock  the  spring  vacation  occurred.  Upon 
reassembling  the  Council  persisted  in  its  decrees,  referring 
the  matter  to  the  King;  and  the  Governor,  in  consequence, 
meditated  the  banishment  of  its  leaders.  On  July  4  he 
issued  orders  for  Villeray  to  retire  to  the  house  of  Berthe- 
lot  on  the  Isle  St.  Laurent  pending  further  orders  to  pro- 
ceed to  France  to  give  an  account  of  his  conduct  to  the 
King.2  Tilly  was  likewise  ordered  to  the  house  of  his 

1"Apres  quoy  le  dit  sieur  de  Tilly  auroit  dit  qu'il  estoit  facheux  de 
demeurer  dans  cette  contrainte  et  qu'il  auroit  mieux  sortir  et  se  retirer 
du  Conseil,  et  en  effect  seroit  sorty  et  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  luy 
auroit  dit  qu'il  n'avoit  qu'a  raporter  ses  provisions  et  qu'il  les  recevroit. 
A  quoy  led.  Sieur  de  Tilly  auroit  replique  qu'il  le  privit  de  trouver  bon 
qu'il  les  gardast  comme  un  tictre  a  sa  famille  de  1'honneur  que  le  Roy 
luy  avoit  fait.  J'ateste  ce  que  desus  veritable,  Le  Gardeur  de  Tilly.' 
Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  314,  et  seq. 

* "  II  est  ordonne  du  sieur  de  Villeray,  premier  conseiller  au  Conseil 
Souverain  de  ce  pays  de  se  retirer  dans  1'Isle  de  Saint-Laurent,  en  la 
maison  du  Sieur  Berthelot,  deux  fois  vingt-quatre  houres  apres  le 
present  ordre  receu  et  d'y  attendre  celluy  de  passer  en  France,  pour 
rendre  conte  au  Roy  de  sa  conduite,  faisant  deffences  aud.  Sieur  de 
Villeray  de  venir  en  cette  ville  sans  nostre  permission."  Coll.  Moreau 
St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  v,  p.  288,  et  seq. 


64          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [64 

brother-in-law,  the  Sieur  of  St.  Denis.  The  Attorney-Gen- 
eral Auteuil  was  ordered  to  his  house  of  Monceaux  at 
Sillery. 

On  July  5,  in  a  meeting  at  the  house  of  Duchesneau,  the 
Council  resolved  not  to  be  intimidated  by  the  Governor,  but 
to  persist  in  its  policy  of  referring  the  question  of  titles  to 
the  King.  Every  effort  was  made  to  keep  Villeray,  Tilly, 
and  Auteuil  in  Quebec  until  the  departure  of  the  ships. 
The  Governor's  order  permitted  them  forty-eight  hours' 
grace  before  they  should  retire  to  the  places  assigned.  Dur- 
ing this  time  the  Council  met  and  addressed  a  petition  to 
the  Governor  to  permit  the  suspended  members  to  attend 
the  Council  until  their  departure  for  France,  inasmuch  as 
the  ordinary  affairs  of  justice,  which  required  a  full  Coun- 
cil, were  very  pressing.  On  the  loth  Duchesneau  too  sought 
to  obtain  this  favor  for  them,  but  Frontenac  refused. 
Further  petitions  were  sent  to  the  Governor  and  he  au- 
thorized La  Ferte  to  interview  Villeray,  Tilly  and  Auteuil, 
who  agreed  to  participate  in  the  ordinary  business  of  jus- 
tice and  to  give  the  Governor  the  title  he  desired,  provided 
that  the  protests  of  Intendant  and  Attorney-General  should 
be  entered  on  the  minutes  at  the  same  time.  On  July  22, 
La  Ferte  made  his  report  to  the  Governor,  who  was  dis- 
satisfied with  the  reservation  and  refused  to  allow  the  ab- 
sent members  to  return.1 

At  a  meeting  on  October  16  the  Council  gained  a  consid- 
erable triumph.  It  had  been  agreed  before  this  meeting, 
which  was  the  first  one  attended  by  the  Governor  for  six 
months,  that  there  should  be  no  mention  of  any  subject  that 
might  give  rise  to  disputes.  After  the  clerk  had  written 

1  In  the  collection  of  records  called  Jugements  ct  Deliberations, 
there  is  a  gap  between  March  27,  1679  and  August  14,  which  we  have 
filled  by  collating  chance  references  from  the  later  minutes  and  from 
the  documents  of  the  Moreau  St.  Mery  Collection. 


65]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  65 

the  heading  to  his  minutes,  Duchesneau  asked  him  to  read 
it.  The  clerk  had  written  as  Frontenac  had  formerly  or- 
dered :  "  Monsieur  the  Governor,  Chief  and  President  of 
the  Council  ".  The  Intendant  protested  that  the  difficulty 
would  recommence  if  the  Governor  insisted  upon  retaining 
the  title  that  the  clerk  had  written.  Frontenac  said  he  would 
rather  retire  than  make  any  difficulty,  in  order  that  the 
Council  might  proceed  to  business.1  The  Intendant  also  re- 
tired and  the  Council  decreed  that  the  Governor  and  Intend- 
ant be  requested  to  agree  that  no  one  should  be  named  in 
the  headings  which  might  be  made,  and  that  the  words  "the 
Council  assembled  "  should  alone  appear.  Both  Governor 
and  Intendant  agreed  to  this  temporary  solution  of  the  dif- 
ficulty. Thus  after  seven  months  of  debate,  banishment, 
and  strife,  the  Council  succeeded  in  forcing  the  Governor 
to  forego  the  cherished  title  of  President  in  its  minutes. 
This  rule  was  enforced  until  October  29,  1680,  when  a  rul- 
ing made  by  the  Council  of  State  was  adopted.  Thenceforth 
Frontenac  was  to  appear  as  Governor  and  Lieutenant-Gen- 
eral  of  the  country,  and  Duchesneau  as  Intendant  of  jus- 
tice, police  and  finance.2  This  ruling,  backing  up  the  Coun- 
cil's contention,  was  the  definitive  settlement  of  the  dis- 
pute about  titles.  Frontenac  no  longer  held  even  the  title  of 
President  of  the  Council. 

During  the  next  few  weeks  several  changes  occurred  in 
the  personnel  of  the  Council.  Villeray  sailed  for  France, 
Tilly  was  too  ill  to  attend  the  meetings,  and  Auteuil  died. 
The  death  of  the  Attorney-General  stirred  up  more  trouble 
in  the  Council.  Auteuil  had  been  ailing  for  some  years. 
Duchesneau,  fearing  his  death  might  cause  a  halt  in  the 

1 "  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  a  dit  que  pour  ne  point  f  aire  d'incident 
il  aymoit  mieux  se  retirer,  afin  la  Compagnie  pust  passer  a  travailler 
et  expedier  les  affaires."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  318. 

Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  238;  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  423,  427- 


66          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [66 

business  of  the  court,  obtained  a  blank  commission  from 
Colbert  dated  1677,*  but  Auteuil  had  rallied  and  had  per- 
formed his  duties  to  the  end.  The  Intendant  now  proposed 
to  fill  out  the  blank  commission  of  deputy  Attorney-General 
with  the  name  of  Auteuil's  son,  a  youth  of  twenty-two,  who 
had  been  admitted  to  the  bar  of  the  Parlement  of  Paris  and 
who  had  since  been  associated  with  his  father  in  the  work 
of  his  office.2  The  Governor  objected  to  this  appointment 
because  the  commission  now  three  and  a  half  years  old 
had  expired,  and  because  the  youth  of  Auteuil  rendered  him 
ineligible.  The  Governor  proposed  that  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Council  should  serve  in  the  capacity  of  Attorney 
General.  The  Council  however  decreed  that  the  Intendant 
should  fill  out  the  commission  with  whatever  name  he 
pleased.  Even  without  the  old  leaders,  the  Council  thus  as- 
sumed an  attitude  independent  of  the  Governor.  They  had 
summoned  Frontenac  and  Duchesneau  to  hear  their  delib- 
erations, without  fear  of  intimidation;  had  ignored  the 
Governor's  recommendation;  and  had  declared  for  the  In- 
tendant. 

The  events  of  1679  undoubtedly  made  for  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Council.  Frontenac's  action  in  banishing  the 
Councillors  had  not  obtained  for  him  the  coveted  title,  nor 
was  he  supported  at  the  French  court.  In  April  20,  1680, 
Colbert  wrote  that  His  Majesty,  after  having  examined  all 

1  Duchesneau  possibly  wished  to  provide  that  one  of  his  friends 
should  obtain  the  office.  He  gave  however  as  his  motive  for  seeking 
the  commission,  that  "  voyant  le  dit  Sieur  procureur  general  fort 
incommode  de  la  poitrine  et  d'une  fluxion  sur  les  yeux,  Et  aprehendant 
qu'il  mourust,  ou  qu'il  tombast  dans  un  estat  dans  lequel  il  ne  pour- 
roit  plus  exercer  sa  charge,  II  se  crut  oblige  d'en  donner  avis  a  Mon- 
seigneur  Colbert,  etc."  Ibid.,  p.  341. 

'Duchesneau  states  as  Auteuil  the  younger's  qualifications:  "  qui 
depuis  deux  ans  a  travaille  sous  son  pere,  et  qui  est  seul  dans  le 
pais  apourvoir  de  charge  qui  ayt  fait  son  cours  de  droit  et  qui  soit 
recou  advocat  en  la  Cour  de  parlement  de  Paris."  Ibid.,  p.  342. 


67]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  fy 

the  papers,  was  of  opinion  that  Frontenac's  conduct  was  de- 
serving of  great  blame,  and  that  he  had  abused  his  au- 
thority. He  would  be  maintained  in  his  office  for  another 
year  however,  in  the  hope  that  he  would  alter  his  conduct. 
He  had  no  right  to  the  title  of  Chief  and  President  of  the 
Council,  and  he  deserved  that  an  indemnity,  taken  out  of 
his  emoluments,  should  be  paid  to  the  Councillors  whom 
he  had  banished.1  Just  one  year  before,  the  same  minister 
had  written  in  a  very  different  tone  to  Duchesneau :  "  When 
the  Governor  votes  anything  in  the  Council,  you  have  but 
to  submit.  The  Council  can  only  make  representations  to 
the  Governor,  and  if  he  does  not  take  heed  of  them,  refer 
them  to  the  King.  But,  even  in  that  case,  you  must  first 
submit  to  the  Governor  all  your  complaints  against  him, 
that  he  may  be  in  a  position  to  answer  them."  2  Without 
taking  either  letter  at  full  face  value,  it  is  evident  that  there 
was  a  reaction  at  Court  in  favor  of  the  Sovereign  Council 
and  in  favor  of  rendering  it  independent  of  the  Governor. 
The  appointment  made  by  Duchesneau  of  M.  Frangois  Mag- 
deleine  Reuette,  Sieur  d'Auteuil,  to  the  place  of  his  father, 
was  confirmed  by  letters  patent  of  the  King,  dated  June  2, 
i68o.3  On  May  29,  the  King  gave  Duchesneau  the  right 
to  appoint  the  ushers  to  the  Council  and  the  clerk  of  the 
Marechaussee  of  Canada.4  The  Governor's  influence  was 

1 "  Sa  Majeste  m'ordonne  encore  de  vous  dire  qu'elle  ne  peut  ap- 
prover en  aucune  maniere  1'ordre  que  vous  avez  donne  aux  deux 
coners  et  au  procureur  gn'al  de  se  retirer,  et  qu*  si  ce  n'etoit  pas 
qu'Elle  espere  encore  que  vous  chargerez  de  conduite  elle  leur  auroit 
adjuge  un  dedommagement  assez  considerable  a  prendre  sur  vos  ap- 
pointemens  parcequ'elle  ne  peut  jamais  autoriser  une  violence  de 
cette  nature  sans  aucun  fondement."  Archives  des  Col.,  series  B, 
vol.  viii,  pp.  39-40. 

*  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  v,  p.  353,  et  seq. 
s  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  422. 

*  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  v,  p.  503. 


58          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [68 

to  be  counterbalanced  by  that  of  the  Intendant,  while  the 
Sovereign  Council  was  to  be  dominated  by  neither. 

In  1 68 1,  a  dispute  resulted  in  the  Governor's  surrender- 
ing the  functions  of  vice-president  to  the  eldest  Councillor. 
On  March  9,  1676,  he  had  requested  the  approval  of  the 
Council  to  his  withdrawal,  since  it  was  not  in  accordance 
with  the  dignity  of  his  office  to  preside  in  the  absence  of 
the  Intendant,  whereupon  Tilly  as  the  eldest  Councillor  pre- 
sided. At  another  time,  Duchesneau  and  Villeray  being 
challenged  withdrew  from  the  Council  chamber;  and 
then  Frontenac  desired  to  collect  the  votes,  but,  on  the  re- 
monstrance of  Tilly,  desisted.  On  March  7,  1678,  in  the 
absence  of  the  Intendant,  the  Governor  desired  again  to 
collect  the  votes  and  pronounce  the  judgments,  whereupon 
Villeray  reminded  him  of  his  statement  that  it  was  not  in 
accordance  with  the  dignity  of  his  office  to  preside  in  the 
absence  of  the  Intendant.  The  Governor  indicated  that  he 
had  changed  his  mind.  It  appears  that  the  principle  was 
propounded  that  the  functions  which  the  Intendant  had  a 
right  to  exercise  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Governor,  should 
not,  in  his  absence,  devolve  upon  the  Governor,  but  upon 
the  eldest  Councillor  present.1 

On  February  3,  1681,  the  Governor  and  five  Councillors 
constituted  the  Council.  Because  they  were  interested  in  a 
certain  action,  the  Governor  and  Peiras  retired.  As  the 
trial  of  a  cause  at  that  time  required  five  judges,  the  Coun- 
cil requested  the  Governor  to  return  to  complete  the  quorum. 
The  Governor,  upon  his  entrance,  told  Villeray  the  First 
Councillor,  that  he  might  take  the  opinions.  Villeray  asked 
for  the  opinion  of  the  Governor  fourth  in  order,  but  he  pre- 
ferred to  give  it  last.  Villeray  stated  that  the  functions 
which  the  Intendant  exercised  included  the  determining  vote 
and  that,  in  the  Intendant's  absence,  the  eldest  Councillor 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  286. 


69]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  69 

had  a  right  to  this  prerogative.  The  Governor  replied  that 
Villeray  might  demand  the  opinions,  collect  the  votes  and 
pronounce  the  decisions,  but  that  his  claim  to  deliver  his 
opinion  last  was  contrary  to  the  King's  wishes.  At  the  con- 
clusion of  the  meeting  Frontenac  pointed  out  how  Villeray 
had  executed  all  the  functions  of  the  Intendant,  including 
the  nomination  of  a  reporter,  while  he,  the  Governor,  had 
delivered  his  opinion  last.1  On  March  10,  1681,  this  pro- 
cedure was  definitely  adopted.2 

A  rapid  sketch  of  a  number  of  cases  will  show  that  the 
Council  sought,  during  the  next  twenty  months,  to  reduce 
the  Governor  to  its  jurisdiction.  For  three  months  a  con- 
test was  waged  in  the  Council  chamber  between  Frontenac 
and  his  old  enemy  Villeray  over  the  latter' s  right  to  the 
title  of  Esquire  in  a  certain  writ.  The  Governor  exhorted 
the  Council  to  order  Villeray  not  to  use  a  title  which  he 
could  not  prove  belonged  to  him;  and  cited  a  decree  of  the 
Council  of  State  of  May  29,  1680,  by  which  the  King  pro- 
hibited Councillors  from  assuming  titles  other  than  those 
he  specified  in  their  commissions.3  Villeray  replied  that 
the  usher  alone  was  responsible  for  the  term  in  the  one 
writ  where  it  occurred,  and  Autueil,  the  Attorney-General, 
concluded  that  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  State  referred 
only  to  titles  used  in  the  Council  chamber  and  its  minutes 
and  registers  and  not  to  those  used  in  private  business.4 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  466-468. 

s "  Et  qu'il  s'y  arrestast  tant  pour  le  present  que  pour  1'avenir  Et 
sans  y  deroger  Encor  que  dans  les  occasions  qui  pourroient  se  pre- 
senter cy  parez  elles  ne  fussent  renouvellees,  a  quoy  Monsieur  le 
Gouverneur  ayant  consenty  le  dit  Sr  de  Villeray  a  dit  son  advis,  Mon- 
sieur le  Gouverneur  sien  ensuite  et  le  dit  sieur  de  Villeray  a  pro- 
nounce 1'arrest,  etc."  Ibid.,  p.  477. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  478. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  506.    The  decree  of   May  29,    1680,   was   the  one  which 
settled  the  difficulty  as  to  what  titles  should  appear  in  the  minutes. 
It  abolished  "  Chief  and  President ",  etc. 


70          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [70 

Having  forced  the  Governor  to  retire1  to  permit  of  un- 
biased consideration  of  the  case,  Auteuil  now  asked  the 
Council  to  request  the  Governor  to  cease  complaints  pre- 
judicial to  the  expedition  of  justice,  and  to  refrain  from 
invalidating  legally- worded  writs  until  His  Majesty  should 
express  his  will  upon  the  subject.2  Upon  this  impudent 
recommendation  the  Council  passed  a  decree  validating  Vil- 
leray's  papers.  Frontenac  was  furious,  more  especially  as 
he  had  that  morning  served  an  order  upon  Villeray,  enjoin- 
ing him  from  using  the  title  of  Esquire  in  writs  of  any  char- 
acter. Villeray  had  not  told  and  Councillors  unanimously 
declared  that  they  had  known  nothing  of  Frontenac's  order. 
The  Governor  held  up  Villeray's  petition,  list  of  titles,  re- 
sponses, etc.,  and  refused  to  give  them  up.  At  the  same 
time  Tilly  rose  as  an  ally ;  said  the  Governor  was  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Council ;  said  that  he  would  not  grant 
an  act  to  Villeray  against  the  Governor  since  the  Council 
had  refused  such  acts  on  several  occasions.  The  majority 
thought  differently  and  sustained  the  act.a  The  Governor 
had  been  treated  as  an  ordinary  Councillor :  his  exhortation 
had  been  treated  not  as  a  mandate  but  as  a  debatable  proper 
sition.  It  was  not  met  by  obedience,  but  by  an  inquiry  into 
the  alleged  abuse,  which  was  decided  to  be  no  abuse. 
Again  in  the  trial  of  Thomas  Vaultier,  pressed  during 

1 "  Sur  quoy  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  a  dit  que  pour  ne  point  ap- 
porter  de  trouble,  sans  prejudicier  au  rang  qu'il  a  plu  au  Roy  luy 
donner  dans  le  Conseil  ny  a  ce  qu'il  est  oblige  de  faire  pour  s'en  ac- 
quicter  II  se  retire,  protestant  de  donner  avis  a  Sa  Majeste  de  la 
maniere  dont  les  affaires  se  traittent  au  Conseil."  Jugements  el  Delib., 
vol.  ii,  p.  483. 

*"de  finir  ses  plaintes  qui  pourvient  estre  prejudici?bles  au  bien  de 
la  justice;  de  n'empescher  que  les  exploits  dont  est  question  n'ayent 
leur  effect  dans  de  pareilles  affaires,  atendu  qu'ils  ne  sont  point  con- 
traindre  de  faire  les  recherches  susdites,  qu'apres  il  sera  plu  Sa 
Majeste  faire  savoir  sa  volonte  sur  ce  sujet."  Ibid.,  p.  490. 

3  For  this  trial,  see  ibid.,  pp.  507,  522,  597. 


7I]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  7l 

April,  1681,  the  Council  attempted  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
the  Governor.  Vaultier,  a  servant  of  Duchesneau,  had  come 
into  collision  with  partisans  of  Frontenac  and  violent  re- 
criminations ensued.  Frontenac  had  him  imprisoned. 
Duchesneau  committed  him  to  trial  before  the  Council, 
which  asked  the  Governor  to  show  cause  why  Vaultier 
was  imprisoned.  Frontenac  replied  that  the  King  should 
know  of  the  conduct  of  the  Council;  that  the  intention  was 
apparently  to  embroil  him  with  the  Council  and  make  him 
amenable  to  its  court  of  justice.  Such  action  implied  that 
the  Council  could  without  request  from  him  constitute  itself 
judge  of  outrages  committed  against  him  and  of  safe- 
guards taken  by  him,  even  after  he  as  Governor  had  taken 
cognizance  of  complaints  addressed  to  him.  On  April  29, 
the  Council  decided  not  to  press  the  suit  but  to  send  all  the 
papers  of  the  trial  to  the  King  for  his  judgment.1 

Councillors  Tilly  and  Peiras  supported  the  Governor's 
position  that  the  Vaultier  affair  was  not  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Council.  They  refused  to  take  part  in  that 
trial  or  any  other  until  their  written  opinions  should  be 
read.  Between  April  and  August  the  Attorney-General 
failed  to  give  his  conclusions  upon  these  protests,  and  the 
majority  was  left  to  do  as  it  liked.  But  Frontenac  wanted 
his  friends  in  the  Council  and  effected  their  return  on  Au- 
gust n,  when  the  Council  voted  to  send  the  dangerous  pro- 
tests unperused  to  the  King.2 

On  the  following  morning  Frontenac  imprisoned  Mathieu 
Damours,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  on  the 
charge  of  clearing  a  boat  on  a  permit  that  had  been  granted 
for  another  purpose.  Did  the  Governor  aim  at  destroying 
the  majority  against  him  in  the  Council?  Dupont  might 
be  counted  upon  for  occasional  support,  and  Tilly  and 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  552,  553,  554- 
'Ibid.,  pp.  490,  522,  S3I,  535,  537,  582-584,  623. 


72          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Peiras,  annoyed  at  their  recent  treatment,  would  be  steady 
supporters.  With  the  Governor's,  the  votes  of  these  three 
would  counterbalance  those  of  the  Intendant,  Villeray,  Vitre 
and  Martiniere.  At  any  rate,  Frontenac  kept  Damours 
hors  de  combat  for  two  months  during  which  time  his 
party  prevented  the  passage  of  a  number  of  hostile  meas- 
ures. This  was  his  only  gain,  for  his  friends  were  in  the 
minority  when  the  Damours  trial  came  up  because  the  Gov- 
ernor was  excluded  as  the  accuser.1 

The  imprisonment  of  a  Councillor  by  the  Governor  called 
for  a  consideration  of  the  rights  of  the  case.  The  opportu- 
nity to  make  Frontenac  party  to  a  suit  was  too  good  to  miss. 
Duchesneau  and  Auteuil  hurried  to  ask  if  they  might  sum- 
mon the  Council  to  try  Damours.  The  Governor  replied 
that  it  was  no  affair  of  the  Council's,  but  upon  their  sug- 
gestion, the  prisoner  petitioned  that  body  to  conduct  his 
trial  in  the  ordinary  way.  Frontenac  was  furious  at  being 
thus  outwitted,  and  protested  to  the  end  of  the  trial  that  he 
could  not  be  made  a  party  to  a  suit.  No  judgment  was 
reached,  but  the  first  steps  of  the  trial  were  successfully 
taken  and  the  documents  obtained  sent  to  the  King. 

In  the  meantime  Councillors  asserted  their  right  to  decide 
how  the  coureurs  de  bois  should  be  treated.  Frontenac  and 
Duchesneau  supported  very  different  policies.  The  former 
wished  not  to  crush  out  this  class  of  hardy  and  enterprising 
adventurers,  but  to  utilize  them  in  pushing  the  French  out- 
posts into  the  wilderness.  It  was  the  business  of  the  In- 
tendant, on  the  other  hand,  to  draw  these  men  back  into 
farming  pursuits,  since  he  was  responsible  to  the  King  for 
the  annual  increase  of  arpents  cleared  and  cultivated.  Fron- 
tenac therefore  wished  merely  to  overawe  the  coureurs  de 
bois,  Duchesneau  to  root  out  the  whole  class. 

1  For  the  process  in  detail  of  this  very  interesting  case,  see  Appendix  B. 


73]          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  73 

The  majority  of  the  Councillors  favored  the  latter  policy. 
When,  in  December,  1680,  Duchesneau's  commissioner, 
Martiniere,  made  so  many  descents  upon  the  coureurs  de 
bois  and  raised  much  excitement  with  confiscations  and  ar- 
rests, the  Council  assumed  the  responsibility  and  voted  high 
pay  to  the  commissioner.  On  April  25  it  decreed  that  the 
accused  should  appear  before  its  tribunal  and  summoned 
twenty-seven  witnesses  to  appear  before  its  commissioner, 
to  whom  it  delegated  the  widest  powers.1 

On  May  2,  the  receiver  of  the  King's  domain  complained 
of  the  expense  of  this  commission  system  and  argued  that 
the  Intendant  should  do  that  work.  The  Attorney-General 
replied  that  there  were  good  grounds  why  Governor  and 
Intendant  should  not  leave  Quebec  for  Montreal  and  dis- 
tant places;  that  the  Intendant  could  not  serve  as  commis- 
sioner and  then  as  president  in  the  court  of  appeals;  that 
the  Council  had  full  power  over  the  coureurs  de  bois  and 
could  delegate  the  trial  in  first  instance  to  whom  it  pleased. 
Frontenac  offered  to  save  the  receiver  all  the  expenses  of 
travel  by  furnishing  canoes,  canoeists,  etc.,  and  proposed 
reducing  commissioners'  rates.  He  claimed  that  Martin- 
iere's  investigations  had  caused  such  widespread  excitement 
that  the  presence  of  himself  and  the  Intendant  would  be  nec- 
essary to  authorize  those  measures,  to  arrest  insolence,  and 
to  assure  obedience.  To  make  an  example  of  the  ringlead- 

1  For  full  particulars,  see  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  441-445, 

545,  547- 

"  le  sieur  de  la  Martiniere  a  este  comtnis  pour  se  transporter  a 
Montreal  Et  autres  lieux,  Et  ouys  pltisieurs  personnes  adjournees  per- 
sonnellment  pour  1'affaire  des  dits  coureurs  de  bois,  Et  pour  informer 
de  nouveau,  Interoger,  recoler  Et  confronter,  de  metter  d'adjourne- 
ment  personnel  ou  de  prise  de  corps,  Et  faire  tous  actes  que  besoin 
sera  jusques  a  arrest  diffinitif  exclusivement  atendu  1'esloignement  des 
lieux  Et  pour  accelerer  1'Instruction  du  proces  dont  le  retardement 
pouroit  estre  prejudiciable  iEt  pour  Esviter  a  plus  grans  frais." 
Ibid.,  p.  5/6. 


74          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [74 

ers,  to  spare  the  others,  and  to  bring  all  back  to  a  sense  of 
duty  were,  he  claimed,  his  objects. 

The  Intendant,  on  the  other  hand,  asserted  that  only  the 
total  destruction  of  the  coureurs  de  bois  could  increase  the 
profits  of  the  King's  "  farm,"  prevent  the  ruin  of  the  colony, 
and  banish  licentiousness  from  it.  He  said  that  the  Coun- 
cil and  he  would  be  surety  for  both  the  expenses  of  the  un- 
dertaking and  the  good  order  of  the  people.1 

The  Council  rejected  Frontenac's  proposals  and  de- 
spatched Martiniere  and  its  own  Attorney-General  upon  a 
second  circuit.  But  the  Governor  also  traveled  beyond  Mon- 
treal, cross-questioned  eleven  witnesses  at  Chambly  before 
the  lieutenant  general  of  Three  Rivers  and  upon  their  evi- 
dence ordered  the  capture  of  two  canoes.  The  raids  were 
successful  and  the  prisoners  were  lodged  in  the  prisons  of 
Quebec.  On  July  14  the  Council  took  cognizance  of  their 
cases.  The  question  of  competence  was  raised.  Since  the 
offenses  concerned  the  King's  revenue  and  the  commission- 
ers of  the  Council  had  not  conducted  preliminary  investiga- 
tions, they  were  held  to  be  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Intendant.  Duchesneau,  however,  yielded  in  favor  of  the 
Council.2  On  July  28,  the  lieutenent  general  of  Three 
Rivers  was  ordered  to  submit  the  minutes  of  his  investiga- 
tions, that  the  Council  might  be  enabled  to  proceed  expe- 
ditiously  with  the  trials.  During  the  intervals  between 
other  disputes  the  crusade  against  the  coureurs  de  bois  was 
vigorously  pushed,  until  the  arrival  of  the  King's  amnesty 
in  August. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  569-572,  5/5-577,  S%7- 
*  "  II  se  retranchoit  apres  la  Compagnie  de  s'en  retenir  la  connois- 
sance  Et  de  se  trouver  bon  qu'il  la  juge  avec  elle,  n'estimant  pas  que 
dans  une  autre  occasion  elle  veuille  tirer  a  consequence,  .  .  .  Et  a 
Este  arreste  que  le  Conseil  prendra  connoissance  de  1'affaire  en 
question."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  608-609. 


75]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  75 

The  publication  of  this  document  gave  rise  to  another  dis- 
pute concerning  the  scope  of  the  Council's  jurisdiction.  On 
August  1 8,  the  Attorney-General  demanded  that  the  am- 
nesty be  promulgated  in  the  villages  of  Nipissing,  Sainte- 
Marie  du  Sault,  St.  Ignace,  Lake  Huron,  St.  Franc.ois- 
Xavier,  and  in  the  Baye  des  Puants,  in  order  that  all 
Frenchmen  who  traded  with  the  Indians  might  learn  its  pro- 
visions and  subsequently  return  to  civilized  communities. 

The  Governor  affirmed  that  the  Council  proposed  to  pro- 
mulgate the  amnesty  beyond  its  own  jurisdiction  in  regions 
where  there  were  no  established  judges  with  appeal  to  the 
royal  prevotes  and  the  Council;  that  the  territory  beyond 
was  within  his  jurisdiction,  whither  he  alone  could  send  his 
own  or  the  King's  commands.  He  promised  that  he  would 
himself  execute  at  once  the  amnesty  in  that  country,  abol- 
ish trading  licenses  and  open  trade  to  all  the  inhabitants.1 
The  Attorney-General  answered  that  he  only  asked  for  the 
same  process  of  promulgation  that  had  been  adopted  on  Oc- 
tober 15,  1676*  Frontenac  replied  that,  whereas  he  had 
had  his  reasons  for  consenting  to  it  then,  he  had  other 
reasons  now  for  objecting.  The  Council  nevertheless  de- 
creed the  promulgation  of  the  amnesty  in  the  manner  and 
places  recommended  by  the  Attorney-General.3  One  of  its 
own  ushers  was  despatched  to  post  copies  in  the  farthest 
settlements  and  posts.  Apparently  the  Sovereign  Council 
thought  that  its  jurisdiction  extended  to  the  boundaries  of 
New  France. 

That  there  should  be  no  rival  jurisdiction  to  its  own,  the 
Council  took  a  significant  step  in  November  of  1681.  Owing 
to  the  great  distance  from  France  and  the  inevitable  ruin 
to  Canadians  who  should  be  compelled  to  plead  in  French 

ljugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  653-654. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  73-  «/&«*.,  p.  655. 


76          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [76 

courts,  the  Council  asked  the  King  to  forbid  the  carrying 
elsewhere  of  any  cases  that  concerned  persons  dwelling  in 
the  country.1  As  all  the  seigniories  had  been  included 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  local  courts,  from  which  appeal 
was  had  to  the  Council,  that  tribunal  would  thus  be  assured 
of  the  ultimate  consideration  of  all  private  business  involv- 
ing inhabitants  of  the  country. 

But  the  Council  aspired  also  to  a  larger  control  of  public 
business.  The  registration  and  promulgation  of  the  King's 
edicts  was  public  business.  The  consideration  of  currency 
problems  was  of  the  same  nature.  During  1681  and  1682 
the  Council  reasserted  its  right  to  fix  the  currency  of  the 
country.  This  was  done  largely  upon  the  initiative  of  the 
Intendant  and  Attorney-General.  After  several  ordinances 
relating  to  the  currency  had  been  enacted  by  the  Intendant 
in  agreement  with  the  Governor,  the  subject  was  introduced 
by  the  Intendant  in  Council  meeting  without  previous  con- 
ference with  the  Governor.  At  this  meeting  on  December 
2,  1680,  the  Council  passed  an  act  which  was  entirely  in  ac- 
cordance with  former  ordinances.2  Later,  Duchesneau  ad- 
mitted that  he  introduced  the  business  simply  to  restore  to 
the  Council  an  old  power.3  "  He  thought  that  having  the 
honor  to  perform  the  functions  of  president,  he  ought  not 
only  to  preserve  to  the  company  the  advantages  which  they 
enjoyed,  but  even  to  increase  them  as  much  as  should  be  in 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  725. 

* "  Dit  a  este  que  doresnavant  les  pieces  de  quatre  sols  et  sols  marquez 
ainsy  que  toutes  autres  sortes  de  monnoye  n'auront  cours  en  ce  pais 
que  sur  le  mesme  pied  des  Louis  d'or  Et  Louis  d'argent  a  raison  du 
tiers  en  montant,  ainsi  qu'il  est  en  usage  depuis  plusieurs  annees." 
Ibid.,  p.  440. 

1 "  et  luy  Intendant  ayant  apris  que  le  Conseil  estoit  en  porcession 
de  faire  les  Reiglemens  des  monoyes  comme  il  luy  dut  Justine  par  celui 
qui  avoit  este  fait  en  mil  six  cent  soixante  sept  le  dixiesme  Janvier." 
Ibid.,  p.  752. 


77]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  77 

his  power  ".  He  had  therefore  not  consulted  with  the  Gov- 
ernor, because  he  did  not  care  to  have  Councillors  think  that 
they  were  doing  no  more  than  vote  upon  a  prearranged 
proposition.  He  wanted  to  have  them  feel  that  they  were 
the  authors  of  the  currency  regulation. 

The  Governor  doubtless  understood  the  situation  in  De- 
cember of  1680;  but  he  said  nothing  until  May  2,  1681, 
when  he  expressed  surprise  that  the  Council  had  not  in- 
formed him  of  the  nature  of  the  business  to  be  considered. 
The  clerk  who  came  to  invite  him  to  "  come  and  take  his 
place  "  should  have  prepared  him.  In  the  matter  of  the 
coureurs  de  bois  the  Intendant  had  done  wrong  in  intro- 
ducing the  subject  before  he  and  the  Governor  had  agreed 
as  to  what  should  be  done.  It  was  evident  to  the  Council 
that  Frontenac  was  sensitive  upon  the  subject.  When, 
therefore,  in  September  the  Attorney-General  complained 
that  the  country  was  flooded  with  underweight  coins,  a  tem- 
porary regulation  only  was  passed  owing  to  the  absence  of 
the  Governor.  On  January  12,  1682,  the  Governor  was 
given  a  week's  notice  that  the  regulation  of  the  currency 
would  be  considered.1  Frontenac  returned  an  indignant 
note.  In  it  he  expressed  astonishment  that  the  clerk  had 
come  to  him  just  one-half  hour  before  the  meeting  of  the 
6th  with  the  announcement  that  the  Council  would  consider 
the  regulation  of  the  currency,  thus  treating  him  like  an 
ordinary  Councillor.  According  to  the  King's  orders  the 
Intendant  should  have  conferred  with  him  concerning  gen- 
eral affairs,  in  order  that  they  might  have  decided  and  pre- 
sented to  the  Council  their  unanimous  opinion.2  Thereafter 

1 "  Et  que  mon  sieur  le  Gouverneur  sera  prie  par  le  greffier  de  la  part 
de  la  Compagnie  de  venir  prendre  sa  place  au  premier  jour  affin  de 
reigler  1'affaire  des  monnoyes,  ou  de  faire  connoistre  sil  desire  y 
estre  present  ou  non."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  741. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  751. 


78          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [78 

the  Council  no  longer  failed  to  give  notice  of  prospective 
business,  but  Frontenac  declined  to  participate.  The  Coun- 
cillors delayed  taking  action  on  the  currency  until  Febru- 
ary 1 6,  when  they  definitely  confirmed  the  regulation  of 
September,  1681,  to  take  all  foreign  money  at  one-third 
above  its  face  value.1  Councillors  passed  this  measure  by 
unanimous  vote.  Even  Tilly  and  Peiras  believed  the  Coun- 
cil could  "  fix  the  currency  ". 

The  years  1679  to  1682  are  more  full  of  significance  for 
the  student  of  the  Sovereign  Council  than  any  other  period 
in  the  history  of  New  France.  During  that  time  the  Coun- 
cil broke  away  from  the  leading  strings  of  the  Governor. 
On  the  other  hand  it  usually  accepted  the  guidance  of  the 
Intendant  and  Attorney-General.  To  keep  such  leadership 
these  officials  planned  to  exalt  the  Council.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court  was  extended  to  comprise  all  persons, 
even  the  Governor,  in  all  parts  of  the  country.  The  share 
of  the  Council  in  public  administration  was  also  recognized. 
Within  its  organization  the  Governor  was  made  practically 
an  honorary  member;  his  functions  as  vice-president  were 
exercised  by  the  eldest  Councillor  present.  It  was  more 
than  the  Governor's  Council,  more  than  the  supreme  court 
of  appeals.  It  almost  justified  its  title  of  Sovereign  Coun- 
cil. 

In  consequence  of  their  quarrels  both  Governor  and  In- 
tendant were  recalled  to  France,  Frontenac  returning  in 
1689  for  his  second  administration.  During  this  interval 
of  seven  years  the  Council  was  associated  with  two  Gov- 
ernors and  two  Intendants.  These  high  officials  came  and 
went ;  the  Councillors'  terms  of  office  ended  only  with  their 
deaths,  which  stability  of  tenure  increased  their  influence. 
Men  newly  arrived  from  France  and  ignorant  of  Canadian 
conditions  naturally  sought  advice  from  officers  who  had 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  760. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  ~g 

been  for  years  conversant  with  the  public  affairs  of  the 
colony. 

The  new  regime  opened  auspiciously  with  promise  of 
peace  and  union.  On  October  9,  1682,  the  Council  met  to 
install  the  new  officials.  Duchesneau,  although  he  had  been 
informed  of  his  recall,  presided  over  the  Council  until  the 
last  minute.  The  letters  patent  of  Le  Febvre  de  la  Barre, 
the  new  Governor,  were  registered.  Then  the  Council  pro- 
ceeded in  a  body  to  beg  him  to  "  come  and  take  his  place  ". 
The  whole  Council  attended  him.  This  mark  of  considera- 
tion led  to  further  demonstrations  of  amity.  The  Governor 
told  how  the  King  had  especially  directed  him  to  establish 
peace  and  quiet,  to  unite  persons  estranged  through 
dissensions,  in  order  that  each  might  apply  himself  to 
the  duties  of  his  office  with  single-mindedness  and  good- 
will.1 He  begged  the  Councillors  to  restore  Tilly  to  office 
since  his  exclusion  had  been  the  result  of  difficulties  between 
Governor  and  Intendant.2  He  drew  out  of  his  pocket 
letters  patent  and  commission  according  the  office  of  In- 
tendant to  Jacques  de  Meulles.  At  this  moment  Duchesneau 
left  the  room.  The  Council  consented  to  receive  Tilly  and 
registered  the  papers  of  Meulles.  A  committee  of  two  was 
delegated  to  escort  the  new  Intendant  to  the  Council  cham- 
ber.8 

In  1684,  the  Council  made  the  first  of  two  notable  at- 

2  "  Ce  que  1'oblige,  ayant  apris  que  le  sieur  de  tilly  1'un  des  Coners 
introduire  afin  que  chacun  pust  s'employer  aux  functions  de  sa  charge 
avec  une  application  entiere  Et  une  reunion  des  coeurs  et  des  Esprits." 
Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  828. 

* "  Ce  que  1'oblige,  ayant  apris  que  le  sieur  de  tilly  1'un  des  Coner* 
de  ce  Conseil  s'e  trouvoit  prive  de  1'honneur  de  sa  Seance  pour  des 
causes  que  le  Conseil  auroit  trouvees  raisonnables,  Etc."  Tilly  had 
last  attended  at  the  morning  session  of  February  23.  On  March  2, 
the  Council  assigned  special  duties  formerly  performed  by  him  to  other 
Councillors.  Ibid.,  p.  771.  The  clerk  said  Tilly  returned  the  public 
papers  to  him  after  the  close  of  the  last  session.  3  Ibid.,  p.  829. 


8o          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [go 

tempts  to  establish  the  right  to  enact  important  legislation 
without  the  participation  of  the  Intendant  as  well  as  the 
Governor.  During  their  absence  meetings  were  called  at 
the  instance  of  the  Attorney-General  on  August  14  and  16. 
At  these  meetings  the  prices  of  wines  and  brandy  were 
considered  and  the  Council  passed  a  decree  upon  the  matter. 
The  Bishop  of  Quebec  attended  both  meetings.  On  August 
21,  the  Intendant  called  a  meeting,  at  which  he  protested 
against  the  enactment  of  a  decree  upon  such  an  important 
subject  during  the  absence  of  Governor  and  Intendant.  Al- 
though the  debate  occupied  both  morning  and  afternoon 
sessions,  the  Council  refused  to  reverse  its  decision.1  It 
offered,  however,  to  compromise,  but  the  Intendant  refused 
and  issued  an  ordinance  giving  the  merchants  complete 
liberty  to  charge  what  they  pleased.  On  March  10,  1685, 
the  Council  of  State  annulled  the  decree  of  the  Council 
and  forbade  it  to  make  any  regulations  in  the  absence  of 
Governor  and  Intendant.  During  the  time  of  Frontenac 
the  Council  had  dispensed  with  the  consent  of  the  Gov- 
ernor to  various  public  measures,  but  now  it  overreached 
itself  when  attempting  to  act  independently  of  both  Gov- 
ernor and  Intendant.  It  met  with  rebuff,  because  the  Court 
considered  .its  action  as  a  usurpation  of  the  ordinance- 
making  power. 

In  1685  Canada  received  a  new  bishop.  His  arrival 
presaged  stirring  events  in  the  Council.  Laval  had  grown 
wise  with  increasing  years.  He  had  steadily  championed 
the  cause  of  the  Indians.  His  arguments  against  the  traffic 
in  liquor  with  those  primitive  peoples  are  most  convincing.2 

VSur  ce  qui  a  este  remontre  a  la  Cour  par  Monsieur  L'Intendant 
afin  de  voir  s'il  n'est  pas  apropos  de  ne  pas  faire  executer  L'arrest 
rendu  en  icelle  le  seize  de  ce  mois  touchant  la  taxe  du  vin  Et  de  1'Eau 
de  Vye,  II  n'  rlen  este  arreste."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  960. 

*  For  the  clearest  exposition  of  his  position,  see  Mand.  des  Er.  de 
Q^^eb.,  vol.  i,  p.  149,  et  seq. 


Si]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  gl 

Yet  he  had  seen  the  need  of  concession  and  compromise. 
The  result  of  labors  extending  over  a  score  of  years  was 
the  limitation  of  the  liquor  traffic  to  towns  and  trading 
posts.  Men  were  restrained  from  going  into  the  forests  to 
live  with  the  Indians,  baiting  them  with  drugged  brandy  and 
getting  their  peltries  for  almost  nothing.  The  traffic  was 
to  go  on  only  in  towns  and  under  the  ordinary  conditions 
of  commerce.  This  edict,  if  executed  effectively,  would 
have  been  some  compensation  for  Bishop  Laval,  although 
the  sale  of  liquor  was  not  proscribed.  Nevertheless  the 
Bishop  saw  that  he  must  be  content  for  the  time  being.  He 
made  concessions  as  to  the  discipline  of  his  clergy  and  in 
his  later  years  he  avoided  any  open  collisions  with  the  tem- 
poral power.  In  1684  he  returned  to  France,  a  man  prema- 
turely worn  and  aged  by  his  strenuous  work  in  Canada.  In 
his  stead  came  Bishop  St.  Vallier,  unmellowed  by  age  and 
experience,  and  filled  with  his  own  ideas  as  to  the  position 
of  the  ecclesiastical  power  and  the  discipline  of  the  clergy. 
Bishop  Laval  had  adjusted  the  clergy  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  communities  in  which  their  work  lay.  Bishop  Saint 
Vallier  thought  these  adjustments  unwise  and  upset  them. 
Consequently,  in  1688,  Bishop  Laval  wrote  to  the  Pope  that 
his  successor  was  "  the  greatest  scourge  and  chastisement 
that  could  befall  the  Church  in  Canada  'V 

The  introduction  of  Bishop  St.  Vallier  into  political 
circles  in  New  France  was  promising.  He  had  made  the 
passage  with  the  Marquis  de  Denonville,  the  Governor 
nominate,  and  entered  the  Council  under  the  new  Governor's 
auspices.  On  August  3,  1685,  the  letters  patent  of  Denon- 
ville were  registered,  to  the  great  chagrin  of  La  Barre  who 
affirmed  that  His  Majesty  had  not  informed  him  of  his 

1  Gosselin,  Vie  de  Mgr.  de  Laval. 


82          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [82 

recall.1  As  his  successor  was  escorted  into  the  Council 
chamber  by  three  Councillors,  La  Barre  rose  and  gave  him 
his  seat,  withdrawing  in  discomfiture  from  an  assembly 
which  had  welcomed  him  with  acclaim  less  than  three  years 
before.  Denonville  announced  that  the  Abbe  St.  Vallier,. 
appointed  Bishop  of  Quebec  by  the  King,  had  come  upon 
his  invitation  to  take  his  place  in  the  Council.  He  had  re- 
mained in  the  office  of  Sieur  de  la  Barre,  judging  that  his 
entrance  would  be  inopportune  as  he  had  brought  from 
France  no  brevet  of  nomination.  Denonville  asked  the 
Council  to  install  Bishop  St.  Vallier  without  the  brevet, 
saying  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  about  the  truth  of  the 
nomination  and  that  His  Majesty  would  be  happy  to  see  the 
Councillors  give  this  proof  of  their  regard  for  a  person 
who  so  richly  merited  it.2  The  Council  consented  to  give 
His  Majesty  so  much  pleasure,  voted  to  receive  the  Bishop, 
and  delegated  Tilly  and  Dupont  to  accompany  him  to  the 
hall.  At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council  the  Intendant  pro- 
posed to  send  two  Councillors  to  the  Governor's  lady  to  ex- 
press the  joy  of  the  assembly  that  she  had  been  willing  to 
expose  herself  to  the  dangers  of  the  sea,  and  their  satisfac- 
tion that  the  country  should  possess  a  person  of  her  rank 
and  courage.  Villeray  and  Vitre  carried  this  message. 
With  these  delicate  compliments  was  the  administration  of 
Denonville  inaugurated. 

Few  events  interrupted  the  harmony  of  the  administra- 
tion. Nevertheless  beneath  the  surface  there  were  feelings 
that  were  not  made  apparent  to  the  public.  For  instance, 
Denonville's  friendship  for  Bishop  St.  Vallier  was  several 

1 "  Sa  Majeste  ne  luy  ait  point  fait  savoir  par  aucunes  de  ses 
depesches  qu'elle  desire  le  rapeller  en  france."  Jugements  et  Delib.,. 
vol.  ii,  p.  ion. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  1012. 


83]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  83 

times  subjected  to  some  strain.  The  Bishop,  not  content 
with  admonishing  the  people  about  their  follies  and  vanities, 
sent  the  Governor  a  five-page  treatise  regulating  the  con- 
duct of  that  functionary,  his  family  and  his  retinue.1  De- 
nonville,  pious  and  orthodox,  probably  felt  this  advice  to  be 
tactless  and  unnecessary.  At  any  rate  in  a  letter  to  the 
King  he  expressed  a  desire  for  the  return  of  Bishop  Laval.2 
Still  there  is  evidence  that  Governor,  Bishop,  Intendant  and 
Council  were  closely  united  at  this  time.3  For  example, 
when  Meulles  was  about  to  leave  for  Acadia  to  see  about 
establishing  fisheries,  he  expressed  the  desire  to  stand  in 
the  good  graces  of  the  Council,  praying  it  to  continue  its 
friendship  for  him  and  to  permit  him  to  take  Councillor 
Peiras  with  him.  He  would  like  to  take  another  Coun- 
cillor as  a  second  adviser,  but  the  smallness  of  their  number 

1  Mandements  des  Eveques  de  Quebec,  vol.  i,  pp.  169-174. 

1  King  to  Denonville  and  Champigny,  Supplement  Canadian  Archives 
Report,  1899,  p.  277. 

8  La  Hontan  was  a  Frontenac  sympathiser.  Naturally  he  exagger- 
ated somewhat  the  ecclesiastical  influence  and  scored  the  Council  with 
which  Frontenac  had  come  into  conflict.  Nevertheless  his  testimony 
is  of  some  value.  Writing  in  1684  he  dwelt  at  length  upon  the  in- 
fluence of  Bishop  and  Jesuits  over  Governor  Denonville.  It  was 
good  policy,  he  said,  for  parents  to  gain  their  good  will,  for  they 
would  influence  the  Governor  to  procure  suitable  husbands  for  their 
daughters,  and  favorites  too  might  receive  one  of  the  twenty-five 
trading  licenses  at  the  disposal  of  the  Governor.  Of  the  Councillors 
this  sharp-tongued  writer  said :  "  When  they  have  nice  points  under 
consideration  they  usually  consult  the  priests  or  Jesuits;  and  if  any 
cause  comes  before  them  in  which  these  good  fathers  are  interested, 
they  are  sure  not  to  be  cast,  unless  it  be  so  very  black,  that  the  cun- 
ningest  lawyer  can't  give  it  a  plausible  turn."  La  Hontan,  Voyages, 
Thwaites'  translation,  vol.  i,  p.  263.  The  records  of  the  Council  in- 
dicate that  there  is  some  truth  in  this  account.  Formal  consultation 
with  the  Jesuits  is  recorded,  and  the  miscarriage  of  justice  where 
ecclesiastics  were  concerned  was  illustrated  by  the  Holland  case  and 
will  be  shown  by  others. 


84          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [84 

and  the  coming  trip  of  Villeray  to  France,  obliged  him  to 
deprive  himself  of  that  pleasure.1 

In  September,  1686,  this  amiable  Intendant  was  super- 
seded by  the  Sieur  de  Champigny,  who  assisted  the  Coun- 
cil in  preparing  several  series  of  police  ordinances.  The 
effective  operation  of  the  Council  was  interrupted,  how- 
ever, in  1689  by  the  blundering  Indian  policy  of  Denonville. 
This  had  resulted  in  the  surprise  and  burning  of  Lachine  by 
the  Iroquois.  Even  the  Council  in  distant  Quebec  adjourned 
in  alarm  to  give  Councillors  and  litigants  a  chance  to  har- 
vest crops  and  take  precautions  against  the  fifteen  hundred 
savages  then  hovering  about.2 

It  was  into  this  Canada  of  war  and  confusion  that  Fron- 
tenac  returned.  His  letters  patent  were  registered  by  the 
Council  on  November  28,  1689,  but  he  failed  to  attend 
any  meetings  until  late  in  the  following  spring.  During  the 
intervening  months,  a  brisk  interchange  of  messages  oc- 
curred concerning  the  reception  of  the  Governor.  Fron- 
tenac  desired  the  same  honors  as  those  accorded  to  the 
King  by  his  Parlement.  If  his  position  was  to  be  only 
that  of  an  honorary  Councillor,  the  Governor  intended  to 
make  it  as  respected  and  dignified  as  possible.  At  last  he 
was  satisfied  with  the  ceremonies  proposed  for  his  initial 
and  later  entrances,  and  on  May  3,  1690,  Dupont,  Peiras, 
Villeray,  his  bete  noir,  and  Damours,  his  erstwhile  prisoner, 
marched  in  state  to  the  Chateau  St.  Louis  and  returned  to 
the  Council  chamber  with  Count  Frontenac  in  their  midst. 
The  personnel  of  this  delegation  seems  to  indicate  a  com- 
mendable desire  to  let  bygones  be  bygones.3  From  1690  to 
June  28,  1694,  the  Governor  attended  an  ever  larger  pro- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1035-1037. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  353- 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  389-392,  397,  405. 


85]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  85 

portion  of  meetings,1  where  he  was  always  conducted  to  his 
chair  by  two  Councillors.2  This  courtesy  was  shown  rather 
to  the  great  man,  who  had  brought  Canada  through  a  grave 
crisis,3  than  to  the  Chief  of  the  Council. 

The  disputes  which  had  disturbed  Frontenac's  first  ad- 
ministration were  not  repeated  for  some  years.  In  1694, 
however,  one  of  the  most  interesting  cases  in  Canadian 
history  arose.  The  Bishop  struck  at  the  practice  of  pre- 
senting skeptical  plays  by  having  the  leading  man  impris- 
oned. The  Governor,  who  was  responsible  for  the  plays 
thus  condemned,  watched  with  some  impatience  the  trial  of 
the  prisoner.  When,  after  some  months,  he  became  con- 
vinced that  the  trial  was  not  fair,  he  condemned  the  Coun- 
cil and  released  the  prisoner  by  force.  The  details  of  the 
process  before  the  court  are  as  follows. 

The  Sieur  de  Mareuil,  a  lieutenant  on  half-pay,  had  been 
admonished  by  the  Bishop  and  others  appointed  by  him,  to 
discontinue  his  alleged  blasphemous  words  against  God,  the 

1  The  incomplete  records  at  my  disposal  show  that  he  attended  three 
meetings  in  1690,  four  in  1691,  eleven  in  1692,  ten  in  1693,  and  fourteen 
in  1694.  After  1694,  he  attended  only  the  hearings  of  the  Lamotte- 
Cadillac  trial  in  1698. 

*This  is  the  shortest  of  the  announcements:  "La  Compagnie  Este 
advertie  que  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  venoit  prendre  sa  place,  Mra  de 
Tilly  Et  Damours  Coners  ont  Este  deputez  pour  Taller  recevoir,  Lesquels 
estant  partis  Le  dit  sieur  Gouverneur  Est  ensuite  Entre  a  la  chambre 
Et  apris  sa  place." 

8  In  1690,  the  Council  was  again  forced  to  adjourn :  "  Sur  ce  qui  a 

este  remontre  par  le  Procureur  General  du  Roy,  qu'atendu  le  pres- 
sant  besoin  de  continuer  les  travaux  des  fortifications  de  cette  Ville, 
pour  la  mettre  en  estat  de  resister  aux  desseins  que  les  Anglois  nos 
Ennemis  ont  forme  de  la  Venir  attaquer  cette  annee  et  faire  tous  leurs 
efforts  pour  s'en  rendre  les  Maistres;  Et  ayant  receu  plusieurs  avis 
qu'ils  estoient  en  Mer  avec  une  flotte  considerable,  qui  pourroit  arriver 
dans  peu."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  754. 


86          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [86 

Holy  Virgin,  and  the  saints.1  Upon  his  continued  disobe- 
dience his  case  was  referred  to  the  Council.  On  February  i, 
the  Attorney-General  made  an  eloquent  speech,  dwelling 
upon  the  danger  of  impiety  to  the  country  and  to  the 
Church.2  The  Council  decided  to  take  cognizance  of  the 
case,  and  ordered  Auteuil  to  ascertain  the  facts  and  Villeray 
to  conduct  the  preliminary  hearings.  Mareuil  in  a  very 
boldly  worded  petition  accepted  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Council.  He  asked  that  the  Bishop's  mandate  of  interdict 
against  him  be  annulled  since  it  was  contrary  to  canon  law, 
which  provided  that  a  man  be  warned  several  times  in  the 
presence  of  two  or  three  witnesses  before  the  infliction  of 
such  a  penalty.  He  challenged  the  Bishop  to  prove  that 
he  had  ever  admonished  the  accused  or  had  authorized  any 
person  to  admonish  him.  He  asked  for  a  speedy  and  public 
trial,  with  a  chance  to  justify  himself,  maintaining  that 
otherwise  the  procedure  would  be  worse  than  the  Inquisi- 

1  Lamotte  Cadillac  thus  describes  the  only  crime  he  admits  that 
Mareuil  had  been  guilty  of :  "  II  est  vrai  quil  y  a  environ  deux  ans 
que  le  Sr  de  Mareuil  a  son  arrivee  icy  s'etant  trouve  en  debauche  dit 
quelque  chause  indecente,  Mr  le  Comte  en  fut  averti,  qui  luy  en  fit 
une  severe  reprimande,  voila  le  proces  qu'on  luy  fait  aujourdhuy,  voila 
le  zele  pastoral  reveille  apres  un  silence  de  deux  annees,  et  la  veille 
d'une  comedie  qu'on  voulut  aboli  a  quelque  prix  que  ce  fut  et  dont 
1'authorite  ecclesiastique  ne  voulloit  pas  avoir  le  dementi. 

"  II  est  incontestable  et  on  ne  peut  nier  sans  rougir  que  Mareuil 
depuis  ce  terns  la  n'ait  eu  recours  a  la  penitence,  il  s'etoit  confesse 
et  a  communie  diverses  fois,  il  tomba  meme  dans  une  maladie  dange- 
reuse  ou  il  receut  les  sacremens,  et  il  a  continue  a  faire  le  devoir  d'un 
chretien  et  d'un  honete  homme."  Correspondance  Generate,  series 
C  xi,  vol.  xiii,  p.  230,  et  seq. 

1 "  II  dit  que  sil  y  a  lieu  au  monde  ou  doive  veiller  a  ceque  limpiette 
soit  bannie,  ce  doit  estre  en  ce  pays,  puisque  ne  Comment  g'aut  qu'a 
se  former  outre  le  scandalle  qu'ell  Cause,  ceux  qui  en  seroienattaints 
petivent  facilement  alterer  les  dogmes  de  la  foy  et  Corrompre  les 
Moeurs,  etc."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  830. 


87  j         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  87 

tion,  which  had  never  been  introduced  into  France.1  The 
petition  was  referred  to  the  Attorney  General  for  his  con- 
clusions. 

The  real  reason  for  the  mandate  of  the  Bishop  be- 
came apparent  only  after  later  hearings.  In  January 
it  was  proposed  to  play  Moliere's  Tartuife  during  the 
Carnival.2  On  the  i/th  Bishop  St.  Vallier  denounced 
all  comedies  and  tragedies  and  prohibited  all  persons  in 
the  parish  from  attending  the  presentation  of  Tartuife  on 
pain  of  excommunication.  At  the  same  time  he  issued  his 
mandate  interdicting  Mareuil,  who  was  to  play  the  title 
role,  from  entering  a  church  or  receiving  any  of  the  sacra- 
ments. Mareuil  was  not  the  person  to  submit  to  this  treat- 
ment. Having  sought  justice  from  the  Bishop  in  vain,  he 
planned  to  appeal  to  the  Governor  and  Council.  But  the 
Bishop  forestalled  him  by  himself  calling  upon  the  Council 
to  punish  the  offender.  He  intended  that  ecclesiastical 
should  be  supplemented  by  secular  punishment.  The  evi- 
dent joy  with  which  Auteuil  had  accepted  the  supposition 
that  the  accused  was  guilty,  and  his  failure  to  recognize 
the  possibility  that  the  Bishop  might  have  been  wrong  in 
pastoral  and  mandate,  indicate  that  Bishop  and  Attorney- 

1  Jugements  et  Deiib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  832. 

*  The  presentation  of  plays  was  not  unusual  in  Canada.  The  Cid 
by  Corneille  had  been  given  in  1646,  again  in  1652,  and  the  Heraclius 
of  the  same  author  in  1651.  Other  plays  followed  and  Bishop  Laval 
does  not  appear  to  have  objected.  St.  Vallier  however  asked  Gover- 
nor de  Denonville  not  to  have  a  dramatic  evening  at  the  time  of  the 
Carnival.  Although  Denonville  acquiesced  Frontenac  was  not  so  com- 
plaisant, for  in  the  early  days  of  January  1694  the  Nicomcde  of 
Corneille  and  the  Mithridate  of  Racine  were  given  with  great  success. 
It  was  then  proposed  to  be  a  little  more  daring  and  give  a  presentation 
of  Tartuffe,  which  had  already  been  driven  from  the  French  stage. 
See  Abbe  Gosselin,  "  Un  Episode  de  1'Histoire  du  Theatre  ati  Canada," 
Transactions  and  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  series 
ii,  vol.  iv. 


88          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [88 

General  were  in  collusion.1  Mareuil  was  to  be  punished; 
the  Bishop's  actions  were  to  be  left  unquestioned.  Mareuil 
had  beaten  the  servant  of  Villeray  and  yet  the  Council  de- 
puted Villeray  to  make  an  impartial  inquiry  into  the  facts 
of  the  case. 

On  March  15,  the  Governor  urged  the  speedy  completion 
of  the  legal  investigation  as  the  accused  was  in  a  very  dis- 
tressing situation.  Mareuil  was  probably  not  so  much  dis- 
tressed by  being  kept  away  from  church,  as  he  was  anxious 
to  justify  himself  at  the  expense  of  the  Bishop.  On  June 
n,  the  Governor  asked  the  Council  to  decide  whether  or 
not  the  Bishop  had  passed  the  bounds  of  his  authority  and 
jurisdiction  to  the  prejudice  of  the  King's.  He  demanded 
that  each  one  should  commit  himself  on  this  subject  by 
having  his  opinion  recorded  in  the  register.  On  June  28, 
this  demand  was  answered  by  the  Attorney-General.  He 
admitted  that  opinions  had  been  recorded  but  asserted  that 
this  method  had  hampered  the  freedom  of  the  Councillors. 
Recorded  opinions  could  only  serve  to  embarrass  the  Coun- 
cil and  to  intimidate  it  in  the  execution  of  justice.2  The 
Council  resolved  to  vote  viva  voce.  No  record  of  this  vote 
appears  on  the  books  of  the  Council.8 

At  this  same  meeting  a  petition  of  Mareuil  was  presented 
asking  once  again  for  the  consideration  of  the  Bishop's 

1  Frontenac,  according  to  Cadillac,  said  "  que  les  conclusions  pre- 
cipitees  du  procureur  general  avoient  etc  prises  dans  le  Cabinet  de 
Mi/r  L'Evesque  avec  qui  il  avoit  etc  en  conference  toute  la  veille  du 
Conseil  Souverain."  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xiii,  pt.  i,  p.  238. 

'"avoir  lieu  de  craindre  dans  la  suitte  quelque  chose  de  facheux, 
si  leurs  dits  avis  n'estoient  trouves  tels  qu'on  1'auroit  desire."  Juge- 
ments  et  De  ib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  892. 

s  Mr.  Edouard  Richard,  who  abstracted  folios  186-270,  vol.  v,  series 
F,  of  the  Collection  Moreau  St.  Mery,  says  that  the  Council  thought 
the  Bishop  went  beyond  his  powers  except  in  issuing  his  pastoral 
warning  people  against  attending  the  presentation  of  Tartuffe. 


89]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  §9 

mandate  against  him.  The  petition  was  referred  to  the  At- 
torney-General who  straightway  pigeon-holed  it.  On  Oc- 
tober 4,  the  Attorney-General  and  First  Councillor  made 
their  reports  and  upon  the  strength  of  them  the  Council 
imprisoned  Mareuil  on  the  I4th  and  seized  and  invoiced 
his  possessions.  In  prison  he  was  interrogated  by  Villeray 
but  refused  to  answer,  taking  formal  exception  to  that 
Councillor  as  reporter  of  his  case  on  the  ground  that  Vil- 
leray was  his  enemy.  The  Council  found  his  objections 
frivolous  and  inadmissible  and  maintained  Villeray  as  re- 
porter. A  deadlock  ensued.  A  month  later  the  prisoner 
was  denied  communication  with  any  of  his  friends.1  The 
Council  was  determined  upon  trying  him  and  upon  not 
hearing  his  countercharges  against  the  Bishop.  On  Novem- 
ber 22,  it  was  ordered  that  if  Mareuil  persisted  in  his  re- 
fusal to  recognize  Villeray  as  reporter  of  his  case,  he  should 
be  tried  unheard.2  At  this  point  Frontenac  intervened.  He 
entered  the  Council  chamber  on  the  following  Monday  and 
ordered  the  registration  of  a  review  he  had  written  of  the 
case  and  of  a  petition  which  Mareuil  had  addressed  to  him. 
The  Intendant  deprecated  such  an  abuse  of  authority  to 
frustrate  justice.  The  Attorney-General  predicted  that  Mar- 
euil's  petition  would  be  found  to  be  filled  with  misrepresen- 
tations and  proposed  to  inform  the  King  that  the  Council 
did  not  support  its  registration.  The  Council  accordingly 
ordered  that  this  registration  should  be  considered  as  pre- 
judicial to  the  authority  of  the  King  and  of  the  Sovereign 
Council. 

Mareuil's  petition  to  the  Governor  was  a  remarkable  ar- 

1 "  deffences  sont  faittes  a  1'archer  a  la  Garde  duquel  il  est,  de  la 
laisser  Communiquer  avec  qui  que  ce  soit."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol. 
i",  P-  939- 

2 "  son  process  sera  instruit  comme  a  un  muet  volontaire."  Ibid., 
p.  94C. 


90          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [90 

raignment  of  Attorney-General  and  First  Councillor.  Au- 
teuil  had  delayed  presenting  the  prisoner's  petitions,  had 
kept  one  in  his  possession  from  March  15  until  October  14; 
had  suppressed  one  date  March  18,  so  that  the  Council 
acted  without  hearing  his  side  of  the  story.  The  Attorney 
General  was  therefore  guilty  of  obtaining  the  decree  of 
March  18  by  artifice.  The  petitioner  claimed  that  the  main- 
tenance of  Villeray  as  his  commissioner  was  in  contraven- 
tion of  two  articles  of  the  ordinance  of  1670.  The  Council 
had  refused  to  consider  his  objections  to  Villeray  and  he 
accordingly  appealed  to  the  Council  of  State  to  annul  this 
decision.  The  decree  of  November  22  was  likewise  ob- 
tained surreptitiously  from  the  Council,  Attorney-General 
and  Villeray  acting  in  collusion  to  prevent  knowledge  of 
his  last  petition  from  reaching  that  body.  Bishop  St.  Val- 
lier  should  not  have  been  received  as  his  accuser,  having 
just  decreed  against  him  as  his  ecclesiastical  judge.  The 
Attorney-General  should  have  demanded  the  mandate  with 
the  alleged  denunciations,  instead  of  posing  at  once  as  his 
accuser.  The  whole  procedure  indicated  the  existence  of  a 
scheme  to  cover  over  the  false  steps  of  the  Bishop  to  the 
ruin  of  the  petitioner.1  They  had  stooped  to  the  lowest  de- 
vices to  obtain  evidence  against  him  for  they  had  solicited 
persons  to  depose  against  him.  The  Attorney-General  had 
actually  imprisoned  one  witness  in  order  by  prison  fare 
and  threats  to  obtain  the  evidence  he  desired.  Others  he 
had  threatened  to  chastise  and  expel  from  the  city,  unless 
they  deposed  what  they  were  supposed  to  know.  Mareuil 
besought  the  Governor  to  deliver  him  from  prison  as  it 
would  be  some  time  before  the  decision  of  the  Council  of 
State  upon  his  appeal  could  reach  Quebec. 

1 "  Ce  precede  done  assez  evidemment  La  parcialite  et  Caballe  formee 
par  le  dit  sieur  procureur  General  pour  Tacher  a  Sauver  les  fauces 
demarches  de  Monseigneur  1'Evesque  par  la  ruine  du  Supliant."  Juge- 
ments  et  Dclib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  951. 


9I]         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  gj 

The  Governor  in  his  writings  referred  to  the  irregularity 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  and  to  his  attempts  to  pre- 
vent these  false  steps.  It  was  not  a  desire  to  palliate  crimes 
but  the  evident  miscarriage  of  justice  that  prompted  his 
intervention.  He  spoke  of  the  attempts  to  gloss  over  the 
affair  and  bring  the  trial  to  a  premature  end  by  inducing 
Mareuil  to  escape  to  France  on  the  last  ship  disguised  as  a 
sailor.  He  said  that  he  would  not  be  doing  his  duty  if  he 
did  not  suspend  the  trial  until  the  Council  should  be  will- 
ing to  conduct  it  according  to  the  forms  of  law;  heretofore 
personal  animosity  had  colored  all  its  proceedings.1  He 
indicated  his  intention  of  delivering  Mareuil  from  prison, 
pending  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  State  upon  his  ap- 
peal. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council,  the  jailer  was  sum- 
moned to  report  whether  or  not  the  Governor  had  made 
good  his  words.  Unable  to  find  the  jailer,  the  usher 
brought  the  jail-record,  where  the  words  "  discharged  by 
Sieur  de  la  Valliere,  Captain  of  the  guards  of  Monsieur 
the  Governor "  were  found  on  the  margin  opposite  the 
name  of  Mareuil.2  It  was,  however,  a  principle  of  the 
Council  not  to  reverse  any  of  its  decrees,  so  it  voted  that 
Villeray  should  remain  reporter  of  the  Mareuil  case  ac- 

1 "  II  est  visible  qu'elle  n'est  remplie  que  de  partialitez,  de  Caballes, 
et  de  passions  particulieres,  et  qu'elle  ne  tend  qu'a  opprimer  par  quelque 
biais  que  ce  puisse  estre,  un  homme  dont  on  hait  peut  estre  encore  plus 
la  personne,  que  le  Crime  qu'on  pretend  qu'il  a  Commis."  Jugements 
et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  953. 

*  The  full  marginal  note  was:  "aujourdhuy  29^  Novembre,  de  1'ordre 
de  Monsieur  le  Comte  de  frontenac,  Gouverneur  et  Lieutenant  Gen- 
eral pour  le  Roy  en  ce  pays,  Nous  Capitaine  de  ses  Gardes,  avons 
decharge  le  present  Registre  et  L'ecroue  cy  a  Coste  de  la  personne 
dud.  sieur  de  Mareuil  aussy  que  la  Recommandation  faitte  au  baz  dud. 
Escroue,  Et  en  Consequence  Enjoignons  au  Consierge  de  ses  prisons 
d'ouvrir  les  portes  aud.  Sieur  de  Mareuil,  a  quoy  il  a  satisfait  a  Iheure 
meme,  et  me  la  remis  entre  les  mains,  signe  de  lavalliere."  Ibid.,  p.  954. 


92          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [92 

cording  to  the  decree  of  October  18  and  November  18  and 
22. 

The  length  of  the  trial,  caused  by  the  persistence  with 
which  the  Council  sought  to  force  Mareuil  to  accept  Vil- 
leray  as  his  reporter,  and  its  sudden  end  brought  about  by 
military  force,  meant  humiliation  and  loss  of  prestige  for 
the  tribunal.  The  affair  does  not  smack  of  premeditated 
injustice,  for  the  partisan  statements  of  Frontenac,  Mareuil 
and  Cadillac  are  all  highly  colored.  The  Councillors  were, 
however,  prejudiced  against  Mareuil:  first,  because  he  be- 
longed to  the  military  class  and  to  the  small  and  brilliant 
circle  about  Frontenac,  with  which  the  Councillors  were 
out  of  sympathy;  second,  because  Frontenac's  champion- 
ship of  his  cause  aroused  the  traditional  hostility  of  the 
Council  towards  the  Governor;  and,  third,  the  attempts  to 
condemn  the  Bishop  as  having  gone  beyond  the  bounds  of 
his  authority  brought  out  the  high  respect  for  that  religious 
arbiter  and  great  feudal  prince  to  the  detriment  of  his  ac- 
cuser. Still  the  trial  was  carried  on  honestly  and  correctly, 
as  far  as  the  common  Councillors  were  concerned,  and 
would  possibly  have  had  a  different  ending,  if  Auteuil  had 
not,  probably,  suppressed  the  prisoner's  petitions.  The  im- 
portant point  about  the  trial  is  that  Frontenac  wrested  a 
prisoner  from  the  Council's  jurisdiction  by  force,  during  the 
process  of  the  trial,  and  the  Council  had  no  recourse. 

At  the  same  time  the  Council  voluntarily  turned  over  to 
the  King  several  cases  involving  the  Bishop,1  and  showed 
great  timidity  in  a  case  involving  another  one  of  Fronte- 
nac's officers.  This  last  affair  was  the  only  one  that  drew 
the  old  Governor  to  the  Council  chamber  after  the  Mareuil 
episode,  possibly  to  see  that  justice  was  done  to  Captain 
Antoine  Lamotte  Cadillac.  In  the  dispute  of  the  latter  with 

1  For  these  cases,  see  Appendix  C. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  AT  ITS  HEIGHT  93 

Joseph  Moreau,  Champigny,  who  was  still  Intendant,  was 
made  reporter.  Cadillac  claimed  that  Champigny  was  not 
an  impartial  person  to  investigate  the  case,  because  he  had 
threatened  the  petitioner  with  heavy  fine  and  had  given  ad- 
vice to  Moreau.  Upon  the  refusal  of  the  Council  to  ap- 
point another  reporter,  he  appealed  to  the  King  and  Fron- 
tenac  asked  that  the  trial  be  suspended  until  the  King's  de- 
cision should  be  heard.  The  failure  of  the  Council  to  act 
upon  this  suggestion  brought  out  such  threats  from  the 
Governor  that  on  March  21,  1698,  the  court  asked  the  In- 
tendant to  excuse  it  from  taking  cognizance  of  the  case. 
Frontenac  was  well  pleased,  while  Champigny  in  his  cha- 
grin declared  that  he  would  judge  the  case  alone  as  In- 
tendant of  justice,  etc.1  Thus  while  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Sovereign  Council  during  the  first  administration  of  Fron- 
tenac was  an  expanding  jurisdiction,  the  reverse  was  the 
case  during  his  second  term  as  Governor  General  of  New 
France. 

The  death  of  the  dignified  old  "  Chef  du  Conseil  "  on 
November  28,  1698,  was  undoubtedly  regretted  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Councillors.  On  December  19,  a  solemn  ser- 
vice was  held  in  the  church  of  the  Recollets  for  the  soul  of 
the  deceased.  The  Councillors  marched  in  a  body  to  the 
church  to  pay  a  last  tribute.2  No  Governor  ever  obtained 
such  marks  of  deference  from  the  Council  as  Frontenac. 
After  his  death,  the  ceremony  of  sending  two  Councillors 
to  meet  the  Governor  on  ordinary  days  of  meeting  was 
abolished,  nor  did  any  Governor  venture  in  later  times  to 
style  himself  "  Chef  du  Conseil  ". 

1  fugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  165-168,  175,  182. 

*It  was  Frontenac's  most  consistent  enemy  Auteuil  who  proposed 
this  mark  of  respect  to  the  dead  "pour  faire  connoistre  par  cette 
ceremonie  la  consideration  qu'il  a  toujours  Eue  pour  la  personne  de 
mond.  Sieur  Legouverneur."  Ibid.,  p.  246. 


94         THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [94 

In  actual  administration  of  affairs  the  Council  had  re- 
ceived little  help  and  encouragement  from  Frontenac.  Dur- 
ing the  last  four  and  a  half  years  of  his  life  he  had  attended 
but  three  or  four  Council  meetings.  That  tribunal  how- 
ever enjoyed  during  his  second  administration  the  inde- 
pendence which  it  had  gradually  won  during  his  first  term 
as  Governor.  The  twenty  years  of  his  administration  saw 
the  Governor  reduced  from  president  and  chief  of  the  Coun- 
cil to  the  position  of  an  honorary  Councillor.  Although  he 
might  still  obstruct  Council  work,  he  had  no  part  in  its  con- 
structive policy  either  as  a  judicial  or  as  an  administrative 
body.  Although  the  Council  risked  in  a  measure  its  high 
repute  for  justice  in  its  regard  for  the  Bishop,  the  most  ef- 
fective period  of  its  operation  coincided  with  the  two  ad- 
ministrations of  Frontenac. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

THE  successor  of  Frontenac  was  not  named  until  after 
an  interval  of  five  months.  Letters  patent  had  been 
granted  to  Louis  Hector  de  Callieres,  who  had  shown 
himself  to  be  the  most  enterprising  officer  in  Canada. 
Upon  May  27,  1699,  tne  King  wrote  to  inform  him  of 
his  appointment.  On  September  13,  the  Council  sent  a 
delegation  to  congratulate  him  upon  his  arrival  at  the 
Chateau  St.  Louis.  Six  weeks  later,  he  made  his  first 
appearance  in  the  Council  chamber,  Villeray  and  Dupont 
preceding  and  Peyras  and  Vitre  following  him.  This 
ceremony  of  the  new  governor's  initial  entrance,  first  prac- 
ticed in  1690,  thus  became  the  customary  mode  of  pro- 
cedure. Likewise  the  initial  entrance  of  the  new  Inten- 
dant  with  an  honorable  escort  of  two  Councillors  and 
the  ushering  out  of  the  old  Intendant  by  a  similar  escort 
became  the  practice  in  1702,  when  M.  de  Beauharnais 
replaced  Jean  Bochart  de  Champigny. 

In  the  year  1700,  a  conflict  between  temporal  and  spir- 
itual authority  enlivened  judicial  routine.  The  Council 
for  a  time  acted  with  spirit  but  the  attachment  of  the 
Attorney-General  for  the  Bishop  ultimately  led  to  an 
accommodation,  no  definite  victory  for  the  Council  re- 
sulting. Ignace  Gosselin,  guardian  of  the  children  of 
Thomas  Rosseau,  had  lent  the  funds  in  trust  for  his  wards 
to  a  merchant  at  a  rate  of  interest  authorized  by  ordi- 
dinance.  He  did  this  in  order  to  clothe  and  educate  his 
95]  95 


96          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [96 

wards.  His  parish  priest,  having  learned  of  his  invest- 
ment, repeatedly  refused  him  absolution,  on  the  ground 
of  usury.  The  priest  reported  the  case  to  the  Bishop, 
who  issued  a  mandate  and  several  special  orders,  refus- 
ing absolution  to  those  who  were  engaged  in  such  busi- 
ness. Gosselin  carried  his  case  to  the  Bishop,  who 
replied  that  absolution  had  been  refused  by  his  order. 
Torn  by  his  desire  to  do  his  duty  to  his  wards  and  by 
fear  for  his  soul,  Gosselin  appealed  to  the  Sovereign 
Council  to  maintain  him  in  his  obedience  to  its  laws,  or 
discharge  him  from  his  office  of  guardian.  M.  Reverin, 
who  was  acting  as  Attorney-General  in  the  temporary 
absence  of  Auteuil,  confirmed  the  petitioner's  story  con- 
cerning the  Bishop's  action.  Some  days  before,  he  said, 
he  had  been  in  the  parish  church  in  Quebec,  when  a 
mandate  of  the  Bishop  was  promulgated,  in  which  among 
other  things  the  Bishop  condemned  the  loans,  which 
merchants  made  to  Indian  traders,  exacting  over  thirty- 
three  per  cent  although  the  current  rate  of  the  kingdom 
was  only  eight  per  cent.  Reverin  asked  that  two  Council- 
lors be  sent  to  ascertain  from  the  Bishop  his  grounds  for 
such  a  mandate  and  whether  he  thought  that  putting 
money  of  wards  out  at  interest  was  usury.  On  April  5, 
1700,  the  Council  appointed  such  a  commission.  On 
April  19,  Villeray  reported  that  the  Bishop  would  explain 
his  reasons  after  he  had  reviewed  the  case.  To  Auteuil, 
present  at  this  meeting,  was  referred  the  petition  of 
Gosselin.  At  this  next  meeting,  Villeray  presented  the 
written  opinion  of  the  Bishop.1  The  case  is  not  again 
mentioned  in  the  records.  The  issue  was  clearly  joined ; 
the  encroachments  of  the  Bishop  were  undeniable.  Per- 
haps Auteuil  lost  the  papers  submitted  to  him  for  his 

1  For  this  case,  see  Jugements  et  Deliberations,  vol.  iv,  pp.  418,  429, 
432.    The  Bishop's  writing  was  not  incorporated  in  the  minutes. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      97 

decision  ;  probably  the  case   was  accommodated.      The 
lack  of  records  is  exasperating. 

In  the  same  year  the  influence  of  the  Intendant  upon 
the  judgments  of  the  Council  was  shown  in  the  De  Lou- 
vigny  case.  The  accused  was  a  captain  of  the  Marine 
stationed  at  Fort  Frontenac.  There,  it  was  alleged,  he 
had  traded  with  the  Iroqnois  in  contravention  with  his 
Majesty's  ordinance.  The  Intendant  referred  the  case 
to  the  Council,  which  decided  on  September  27  to  take 
cognizance  of  it.  The  Iroquois  had  petitioned  the  Gov- 
ernor to  set  Louvigny  free,  because  he  had  clothed  their 
nakedness.  De  Callieres  answered  that  he  had  imprisoned 
him  because  of  disobedience  and  that  he  would  put  an- 
other commandant  at  Fort  Frontenac.  Martiniere,  who 
was  reporter  of  the  case,  had  some  difficulty  in  getting 
any  one  to  testify.  Finally,  sufficient  evidence  was  ob- 
tained, the  tell-tale  peltries  were  seized  and  confiscated 
and  sold  at  auction.  The  Governor  was  most  active  in 
the  prosecution.  The  case  was  worthy  of  such  solicitude, 
for  it  involved  several  other  persons,  Laperottiere,  Gode- 
froy,  Desruisseau,  etc.  —  upon  similar  indictments.  On 
October  23,  Callieres  produced  the  last  pieces  of  evidence 
and  four  days  later  the  judgment  of  the  court  was  reached. 
Governor  de  Callieres  gave  this  dissenting  opinion :  that 
Sieurs  de  Louvigny  and  Laperottiere  ought  to  be  judged 
finally  in  accordance  with  the  orders  of  the  King  for  the 
sake  of  the  example;  concerning  Godefroy  he  advised 
less  stringent  measures :  *  that  the  person  Desruisseau 
should  be  condemned  to  a  fine  of  500  livres  for  having 
purchased  the  peltries  at  the  fort.  Whether  any  of  the 
Councillors  held  the  Governor's  opinion  is  unknown. 
The  judgment  representing  the  majority  of  opinions  was 

1 "   .  .  .  il  aura  provision  de  sa  personne."    Ibid.,  p.  503. 


98          THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE        [98 

that  Louvigny  and  Laperottiere  should  be  sent  to  His 
Majesty  to  be  judged ;  that  Godefroy,  Cullerier,  and 
Garras  should  be  released  because  they  were  not  old 
offenders,  and  that  Ruisseaux  be  condemned  to  a  fine 
of  300  livres.1  Thus  the  Council  itself  punished  no  one 
but  the  purchaser  of  peltries.  The  Council  had  failed  to 
convict  the  worst  offenders  and  even  though  supported 
by  Governor  de  Callieres,  who  favored  vigorous  measures, 
had  shifted  the  responsibility  of  judgment  to  the  King. 
The  situation  was  entirely  reversed  from  that  of  1681, 
when  it  was  the  Council  which  was  grasping  at  the 
chance  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  and  favoring  stringent 
measures  against  the  coureurs  de  bois ;  and  it  was  the 
Governor  who  then  sought  to  limit  its  power  and  favored 
a  policy  of  moderation.  The  refusal  of  the  Intendant  to 
judge  the  case  and  the  tone  of  His  Majesty's  letters  indi- 
cate that  that  official  was  largely  responsible  for  this 
lenient  judgment.2  The  King  complained  of  the  evident 
partiality  of  the  judges.3  The  Mareuil  case  had  brought 

'"   ...  attendu  leur  peu  d' Experience."     Ibid.,  p.  503. 

*In  a  royal  memorial  to  Callieres  and  Champigny  this  partiality  is 
condemned.  Louvigny  was  to  remain  captain  of  his  company  in  con- 
sideration of  his  services,  but  his  office  of  mayor  of  Three  Rivers  was 
taken  away.  Perottiere  was  reduced  for  the  same  offence.  Supplement 
Canadian  Archives  Report,  1899,  p.  355. 

$The  minister  wrote  to  Champigny  that  he  showed  partiality  towards 
Louvigny.  It  was  asserted  that  Madame  de  Champigny,  through  mis- 
taken principles  of  charity,  prevented  the  punishment  of  guilty  persons 
by  her  entreaties.  He  must  forbid  her  to  meddle  with  such  matters. 
At  the  same  time  the  King  wrote:  "  Je  ne  puis  me  dispenser  de  vous 
dire  que  vous  avez  marque  beaucoup  de  partialite  dans  1'affaire  du  Sr  de 
Louvigny,  et  il  paroist,  par  la  maniere  dont  elle  a  este  instruite,  que 
vous  ne  vous  en  estes  charge  que  pour  prouver  le  moyen  d'esluder 
1'execution  des  ordonnances  de  Sa  Majeste  cette  conduitte  ne  convient 
point  a  aucun  officier  et  encore  moins  a  un  intendant,  dont  la  principelle 
fonction  est  de  tenir  la  main  a  1'execution  des  ordonnances  de  Sa  Maj1* 
et  je  vous  prie  de  prendre  garde  de  ne  pas  tomber  dans  ces  sortes  de 
fautes."  Archives  des  Colonies,  series  B,  vol.  xxii,  pt.  ii,  p.  325. 


99]       THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY      99 

forth  a  like  complaint.1  The  prestige  of  the  Council 
was  somewhat  damaged.  The  strongest,  most  vigorous 
period  of  its  existence  was  passed,  There  was  no  marked 
decline,  but  such  trials  as  the  one  chronicled  above  show 
that  the  Council  was  no  longer  aggressive.  It  was  in  a 
defensive  position. 

In  1702  Charhpigny  was  replaced  by  M.  de  Beauharnais. 
In  the  following  year  Governor  de  Callieres  died  and 
Philippe  Rigaud,  Marquis  de  Vaudreuil,  was  commissioned 
as  Governor  General  of  New  France.  Vaudreuil  had 
been  in  the  King's  service  as  soldier,  and  Governor  of 
Montreal  for  thirty-two  years.  He  now  held  the  first 
place  in  the  province  until  his  death  in  1725.  During 
this  period  Beauharnais,  the  two  Raudots  and  Begon 
acted  successively  as  Intendant.  A  detailed  description 
of  the  Council  under  these  presidents  is  unnecessary  for 
our  purpose  which  is  to  describe  only  those  events  in 
its  history,  which  indicate  a  rise  or  fall  of  its  power  or  a 
change  of  standing  in  public  opinion.  It  will  be  possible, 
therefore,  to  describe  the  chief  events  of  the  administration 
of  Vaudreuil  (1703-25)  in  the  briefest  manner. 

The  old  members  of  the  Sovereign  Council  had  nearly 
all  died  in  office.  In  1679  Autueil  died  and  was  suc- 
ceeded in  the  office  of  Attorney- General  by  his  son.  In 
1696  Charles  Aubert,  Sieur  de  la  Chesnaye,  had  been 
appointed  to  the  office  of  Councillor  left  vacant  by  the 
death  of  Tilly.  In  the  same  year  Damours  died  and  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Bernard  Damours,  Sieur  de  Plaine 
et  de  Freneuse.  In  1700  Villeray  died  in  harness,  having 

'The  minister  had  written  to  Champigny,  "Thus  you  were  on  bad 
terms  with  the  Bishop  until  he  fell  out  with  M.  de  Frontenac,  and  then 
you  left  the  latter  to  act  alone  in  procuring  justice  for  those  who  ap- 
pealed to  the  courts,  on  the  ground  of  abuse  of  power  against  the 
Bishop's  proceedings."  Supplement  Can.  Archives  JZeport,  1859,  p. 
310. 


100       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [IOo 

presided  as  First  Councillor  and  signed  the  minutes 
almost  to  the  day  of  his  death,1  and  in  the  summer  of 
1691  Peiras  attended  his  last  meetings.  Council  sessions 
became  so  slenderly  attended  that  it  was  no  longer  pos- 
sible to  marshal  a  working  quorum.  On  June  27,  1701, 
the  Council  passed  a  decree  permitting  two  judges 
to  summon  a  third  from  the  attorneys  {practiciens} 
when  but  two  Councillors  were  present  or  left  unchal- 
lenged.2 

The  King  offered  a  better  remedy,  however  in  1703  by 
increasing  the  number  of  Councillors  by  five.3  Lotbiniere, 
who  had  been  a  Councillor  from  1660  to  1677  and  had 
then  occupied  the  important  position  of  lieutenant  gen- 
eral of  Quebec,  was  made  First  Councillor,  Claude  de 
Bermen,  Sieur  de  la  Martiniere  being  given  his  position. 
Monseignat  and  Hazeur  were  appointed  to  the  two  vacant 
seats  in  the  Council.  The  five  new  Councillors  were 
MM.  de  la  Durantaye,  de  Repentigny,  de  Villeray,  son 

lf*  Estant  arrive  que  Me  Louis  Rouer  de  Villeray  premier  Conseiller 
aud.  Conseil  seroit  decede  L'undy  dernier  Sixisme  du  present  mois  sans 
avoir  pu  signer  les  arrests  de  la  Sceance  du  2gf  9hre  dernier  a  laquelle  il 
avoit  preside,  ainsi  que  quelques  autres  arrests  qu'il  n'a  non  plus  Eu  le 
temps  de  signer  sur  le  Registre  layant  cependant  fait  sur  le  plumitif 
apres  les  assemblies  ausquelles  il  Sestoit  trouve  president."  Jugements 
et  Delib.,  vol.  iv,  p.  513. 

2 II  ''a  este  arreste  aud.  Conseil  que  dans  les  assemblers  d'Iceluy  qu'il 
sera  pris  Et  appelle  un  troisieme  Juge  li  rsqu'il  ne  s'y  trouvera  que  deux 
des  Coner"  En  Iceluy  affin  d'administrer  la  Justice  a  1'ordinaire,  ou  que 
sy  Estant  trouve  plus  grand  nombre  Us  auront  Este  obligez  de  se  re- 
tirer,  ce  qui  porrra  Estre  vollablement  fait  par  les  deux  presens  non 
recusez."  Ibid  ,  p.  585. 

5 "  Mais  1'experience  a  fait  connoitre  que  le  nombre  de  juges  etoit 
trop  petit,  d'autant  par  1'absence  ou  par  maladie  d'aucuns  d'iceux,  ils  se 
sont  trouves  au  nombre  inferieur  a  celui  reg1e  par  nos  ordonnances,  en 
sorte  que  nous  avons  resolu  de  joindre  encore  cine  conseillers  au  sept 
etablis  en  vertu  de  notre  declaration,"  etc.  Edits  et  Ordonnances, 
vol.  i,  p.  300. 


I0i]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    IOr 

of  the  late  Councillor,  and  Aubert,  and  the  Abbe  de  la 
Colombiere.  Of  the  old  members  only  Lotbiniere  and 
Dupont  had  participated  in  the  events  of  the  Talon  and 
Frontenac  regimes.  Upon  the  death  of  Villeray  in  1700, 
Dupont  had  been  elected  First  Councillor  by  the  Coun- 
cil subject  to  the  confirmation  of  the  King,  who  com- 
pensated him  with  various  offices  when  he  put  Lotbiniere 
into  his  place.1  Auteuil,  as  we  have  seen,  succeeded  his 
father  as  Attorney-General,  and  shortly  after  this  period 
obtained  assurance  of  the  reversion  of  the  office  to  his 
son.  Alexandre  Peuvret  had  succeeded  his  father  as 
secretary  or  clerk  of  the  Council.  In  1702  a  man  who 
was  to  be  a  very  active  member,  Mathieu  Martin  Delino, 
was  installed.  The  commission  of  Repentigny  was  never 
received  by  the  Sovereign  Council  and  he  never  served 
as  Councillor.  The  list  of  active  Councillors  was  thus 
Lotbiniere,  First  Councillor  ;  Dupont,  dean  and  keeper 
of  the  seals;  Riverin,  Delino,  Monseignat,  Hazeur, 
La  Durantaye,  Aubert  de  la  Chesnaye,  Villeray,  La  Co- 
lumbiere,  with  Auteuil  as  Attorney-General  and  Peuvret 
as  chief  clerk. 

The  five  new  Councillors  served  without  pay.  Gra- 
tuitous service  in  a  busy  community  is  likely  to  be  per- 
formed in  very  perfunctory  way,  but  it  was  not  so  in  this 
case.  For  a  time  the  attendance  of  the  reinforced  assem- 
bly was  steadily  good.  Often  the  eleven  active  Council- 
lors were  all  present,  and  the  average  attendance  of  the 
next  decade  was  eight.  Later,  even  when  all  except  the 

JThe  minister  wrote  to  Dupont  on  June  14,  1704.  It  was  not  from 
dissatisfaction  with  him  that  the  King  appointed  Lotbiniere  First  Coun- 
cillor, but  on  account  of  the  long  and  important  services  rendered  by 
Lotbiniere  as  lieutenant  general  of  the  Prevote.  He  has  given  him  the 
office  of  Councillor  and  keeper  of  the  seal.  Supplement  Can.  Arch. 
Report,  1899,  p.  378. 


102       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [IO2 

clerical  Councillor  received  salaries,  the  attendance  gradu- 
ally dwindled.  The  royal  declaration  which  authorized  the 
increase  in  the  Council's  membership  spoke  of  the  "  Con- 
seil  Superieur  ".  Henceforth  the  Council  was  no  longer 
the  Sovereign  but  the  Superior  Council.1 

A  change  in  the  character  of  the  Councillors  may 
perhaps  be  noted  at  this  time.  In  earlier  times,  Coun- 
cillors were  allowed  to  hold  no  other  office.  Martiniere 
had  had  to  choose  between  the  position  of  Councillor 
and  service  with  the  Trading  Company  of  Hudson's  Bay, 
and  Villeray  had  been  severely  criticised  for  selling  meat 
in  his  house.  The  worst  thing  that  could  be  said  about 
a  public  official  was  that  he  was  in  trade,  or  connived  at 
the  trade  of  others,  with  the  Indians.  Frontenac  vigor- 
ously defended  himself  against  such  charges.  But  begin- 
ning with  the  eighteenth-century  public  opinion  and 
conciliar  conscience  permitted  the  frank  combination  of 
public  duties  and  commercial  projects. 

In  the  spring  of  1700  a  petition  was  addressed  to  the 
King  by  the  grantees  of  the  south  shore  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence below  Quebec,  respecting  the  right  to  trade  with 
the  Indians.  It  was  signed  by  Villeray,  Damours,  Peiras 
and  Vitre,  Councillors,  and  Auteuil,  Attorney-General, 
and  eighteen  others.  The  King  consented  to  the  forma- 

1  Following  Chereul,  vol.  ii,  p.  100,  in  his  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  Park- 
man  says  that  this  change  of  title  was  part  of  a  general  movement 
throughout  the  kingdom;  that  the  Grand  Monarch  could  not  tolerate  the 
word  sovereign  applied  to  another  institution.  On  the  other  hand,  Des- 
maze,  op.  tit.,  p.  473,  shows  that  Sovereign  and  Superior  Councils  in 
France  were  entirely  different  courts,  the  latter  being  instituted  by  Louis 
XIV  in  Arras,  Blois,  Chalons,  Clermont,  Lyons  and  Poitiers,  to  remedy 
abuses  in  the  lower  courts,  and  to  prevent  the  extension  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Parlement  of  Paris.  The  old  Sovereign  Councils  were  re- 
tained. It  is  evident  that  the  Canadian  tribunal  did  not  receive  its 
change  of  title  (for  the  change  went  no  farther)  as  part  of  this  move- 
ment in  France. 


I03J    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

tion  of  a  company,  which  was  incorporated  under  the 
name  of  the  "Company  of  the  Colony  of  Canada"  (La 
Compagnie  de  la  Colonie  du  Canada).  On  October  15, 
Auteuil,  Lotbiniere,  Riverin,  Hazeur,  Gobin,  Macart  and 
Peire  were  elected  directors  and  La  Chesnaye  and  Delino 
delegates  for  France.  On  May  21,  1701,  the  minister 
sent  Auteuil  his  congratulations  that  he  had  been  selec- 
ted as  manager  of  this  new  company  for  the  beaver  trade. 
But  the  affairs  of  the  Company  did  not  prosper.  In  order 
to  make  beaver  hats  popular  the  price  was  reduced,  and, 
as  the  Indians  had  to  be  paid  at  the  previous  rate  to 
keep  them  from  selling  their  skins  to  the  English,  the 
middleman  suffered.  The  Company  therefore  through 
its  agent  Delino  asked  that  the  duty  of  one-quarter  the 
beaver  skins  be  abolished  and  be  replaced  by  a  duty  on 
draper's  goods,  merceries,  groceries  and  millinery.  The 
petition  was  granted,  but  even  with  this  encouragement 
the  Company  was  not  successful.  The  minister  wrote 
that  as  Lotbiniere  was  First  Councillor  and  director  of 
the  beaver  Company,  he  ought  to  endeavor  to  put  an  end 
to  the  cabals  existing  in  the  Company.  Commerce  and 
justice  went  thus  hand  in  hand.  The  most  dignified 
members  of  the  Council  traded.  .  Vaudreuil  was,  accord- 
ing to  Auteuil,  in  the  business,  while  Begon  in  1715  ad- 
mitted that  he  had  traded.1 

La  Compagnie  de  la  Colonie  proved  to  be  a  bad  ven- 
ture. People  refused  to  subscribe  to  its  shares  and  it 
gradually  became  insolvent.  Meanwhile  in  a  letter  dated 
June  17,  1705,  the  minister  informed  Auteuil  that  its 
board  of  directors  was  abolished.  On  December  15, 
Raudot,  the  Intendant,  directed  an  account  to  be  ren- 
dered by  the  former  directors.  Auteuil  and  the  other 

1  Supplement  Can.  Arch.  Report,  1899,  pp.  122,  391. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [IO4 

directors  held  that  the  management,  having  been  sup- 
pressed, did  not  exist  and  therefore  could  not  order 
the  clerks  to  make  the  desired  report.  Raudot  held 
that  the  erstwhile  directors  were  able  and  were  under 
obligations  to  do  so.1  He  ordered  the  clerks  of  the 
Company  to  render  their  accounts  to  the  said  direc- 
tors and  instructed  the  directors  to  hold  a  meeting 
in  order  to  receive  them.  Bad  management,  ignorance 
and  dishonesty  were  disclosed.  The  agent  of  the  Com- 
pany, Delino,  was  interdicted  as  Councillor  in  1706  as 
penalty  for  his  commercial  failure;  but  he  was  reinstated 
in  the  following  year.2 

The  irritation  caused  by  allowing  officers  of  justice  to 
involve  themselves  in  the  vicissitudes  and  struggles 
of  commercial  enterprise,  was  at  the  same  time  increased 
by  various  episodes  in  a  suit  brought  by  Berthelot  against 
Madame  de  la  Forest  for  recovery  of  the  Island  of  Orle- 
ans. Madame  de  la  Forest  had  paid  but  4,000  livres  of 
the  purchase  price  of  31,000  livres.  As  early  as  1702 
Berthelot  had  informed  the  minister  that  he  had  taken 
proceedings  to  recover  the  balance  or  get  the  sale  can- 
celed.3 The  minister  instructed  Beauharnais,  then  Inten- 
dant,  to  see  that  the  Council  should  grant  him  a  prompt 
and  effectual  remedy.  Raudot,  the  successor  of  Beauhar- 
nais, pushed  the  suit,  but  it  was  not  until  December  7, 
1705,  that  the  Council  condemned  the  defendant  to  re- 
store the  estate  to  the  plaintiff.4  Autueil  was  the  brother- 

lSup.  Can.  Arch.  Report,  1859,  pp.  99,  101,  108,  in,  353,  38-%  383. 

1  Raudot  was  loathe  to  remove  Delino  from  the  Council,  as  he  said 
that  he  was  its  most  able  member.  The  minister,  however,  wrote  on 
June  10,  1706:  He  has  deceived  the  company  and  the  writer  himself; 
on  his  arrival  in  France  he  must  stand  trial,  and  the  King  will  deprive 
him  of  the  office  of  Councillor.  Ibid.,  p.  202. 

sThe  minister  to  Callieres,  May  30,  1703.    Ibid.,  p.  367. 

^Jugements  et  Dilib.,  vol.  v,  p.  201. 


I05]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

in-law  of  Madame  de  la  Forest  and  was  largely  respon- 
sible for  the  delays  in  the  trial  and  for  the  unruly  behavior 
of  the  lady.  He  was  irritated  that  the  Intendant's  conduct 
concerning  the  Compagnie  de  la  Colonie  du  Canada  had 
been  approved  by  the  minister.  His  conduct  in  the 
Berthelot-La  Forest  affair  was  due  to  this  chargin  and 
to  a  desire  to  champion  his  sister-in-law's  cause. 

Judgments  had  been  given  against  her  in  the  provost 
court  of  Quebec,  the  Superior  Council  and  the  Chatelet 
of  Paris.  Finally  on  January  18,  1706,  she  appealed  to 
the  Council  of  the  King,  expressed  objection  to  all 
Councillors,  judges  and  advocates  in  Canada  and  laid 
the  documents  in  the  case  on  the  Council  table.  They 
were  referred  to  Raudot  the  younger  to  report  upon. 
Later  in  the  week  Madame  de  la  Forest  obtained  them 
from  Raudot  upon  the  promise  to  return  them  before 
the  Council  meeting  on  January  25.  This  she  failed  to 
do,  and  the  Intendant  had  to  place  a  guard  in  her  house 
(mettre  Garnison  chez  elle]  before  she  would  }-ield.  At 
the  meeting  on  January  25  she  challenged  the  Intendant, 
stating  that  he  had  issued  an  order  against  her  and  was 
therefore  not  competent  to  be  her  judge.  The  Council 
decided  otherwise.  At  the  same  time  it  was  found  that 
Auteuil  had  written  some  parts  of  this  act  of  challenge 
and  interlined  others.  Upon  being  summoned  to  ac- 
knowledge his  handwriting  he  wrote  out  his  justification 
for  the  act.  Raudot  condemned  this  course  of  conduct 
as  lacking  in  respect  toward  the  Council.  Auteuil  re- 
plied that  if  he  failed  in  respect  to  the  Council,  the  In- 
tendant had  done  likewise  inasmuch  as  he  had  supplied 
the  places  of  the  challenged  Councillors  by  nominations 
made  without  consulting  the  Council,  alleging  that 
Madame  cle  la  Forest  made  no  objection  to  them, 
whereas  he  knew  perfectly  well  that  she  had  objection 


I06       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [IO6 

to  any  official  in  Canada.  The  Council  declared  through 
the  mouth  of  Raudot  that  his  accusations  were  without 
proper  evidence,  that  his  conduct  in  writing  parts  of  a 
paper  designed  to  make  the  Intendant  party  to  a  suit 
was  not  in  keeping  with  the  duties  of  an  Attorney- 
General,  that  he  should  not  in  future  draw  up  such 
papers  for  litigants,  and  that  he  should  display  more 
respect  for  the  Council. 

Eventually  the  Council  of  Stste  reversed  the  decisions 
of  the  Council,  Chatelet  and  Provost  Court.  On  July  7, 
1708,  it  issued  a  decree,  ordering  Berthelot  to  pay  20,000 
livres  in  damages,  which  reduced  the  sum  due  him  to 
7,000  livres,  for  the  payment  of  which  a  delay  of  one 
year  was  granted  to  Madame  de  la  Forest.1 

As  for  Auteuil,  his  actions  led  to  his  dismissal  from 
office.  On  June  9,  1706,  the  Minister  wrote  him  that 
Raudot  was  right  in  preventing  his  exceeding  the  limits 
of  his  duties.2  On  June  30,  1707,  he  was  dismissed  from 
office.  M.  Macart  served  as  Attorney  General  until 
1710,  when  Sieur  le  Due  was  commissioned  to  fill  that 
office.  He  died  however  fourteen  days  after  his  arrival 
in  Canada,  and  M.  Macart  continued  to  perform  the 
functions  of  the  office  until  October  17,  1712,  when 
Mathieu  Benoit  Collet  was  regularly  installed.3 

Auteuil  had  in  part  been  the  cause  of  increasing  the 
Council's  jurisdiction  during  the  years  1679  to  1682  :  he 
had  always  been  the  champion  of  freedom  of  deliberation 
in  the  Sovereign  Council,  but  his  later  conduct  would 

1  The  decision  simply  indicates  the  King's  wish.  His  minister  had 
repeatedly  urged  accommodation  of  difficulties,  and  indicated  that  the 
King  was  unwilling  that  the  defendant  should  be  severely  dealt  with. 
Ibid.,  pp.  216-222. 

*Sup.  Can.  Arch.  Report,  1899,  p.  391. 
*Jugements  et  D&lib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  523. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

seem  to  indicate  that  personal  ambition,  not  deliberate 
endeavor  to  increase  the  Council's  power,  was  the  main- 
spring of  his  actions.  Duplicity  in  business  and  partiality 
to  relatives  ill-became  an  Attorney-General  of  the  King. 
Still  with  all  his  faults,  and  Raudot  has  taken  good  care 
to  exaggerate  them,1  he  represented  perhaps  most  truly 
the  free-thinking  Canadian  native,  fighting  in  the  person 
of  Governor  and  Intendant  an  undesirable  political  ma- 
chine. 

Throughout  this  period  Vaudreuil  worked  in  harmony 
with  the  successive  Intendants  in  the1  Superior  Council. 
Governor  and  Intendant  if  united  exerted  great  influence 
over  its  proceedings.  This  was  evidently  the  case  in  the 
proceedings  just  chronicled.  It  was  also  evident  in  the 
events  of  1714,  which  deserve  brief  description.  Mar- 
tiniere,  appointed  lieutenant  of  the  provost  court  of 
Quebec,  when  Lotbiniere  became  First  Councillor,  had 
had  trouble  with  Raudot.  He  complained  that  the  In- 
tendant encroached  upon  the  privileges  of  the  Council 
and  constituted  himself  sole  judge.  There  was  trouble 
about  the  appointment  of  a  clerk  of  the  provost  court. 
Martiniere  questioned  the  probity  of  Vaudreuil.  He 
was  so  independent,  in  fact,  that  Raudot  proposed  to  the 
minister  the  abolition  of  the  local  court  of  Quebec. 
The  minister  thought  the  proposal  impracticable.2  Mar- 
tiniere was  retained  in  his  post  and  wa?  raised  to  be 

1  Raudot  wrote  that  Auteuil  boasted  of  his  omnipotence  with  the 
King,  and  of  having  caused  the  recall  of  Frontenac;  that  his  son  had 
thrown  a  stone  at  a  soldier  inflicting  a  wound  from  which  the  man  died, 
nobody  venturing  to  lay  a  complaint  so  great  was  the  fear  of  the  resent- 
ment of  the  family.  He  concluded  with  the  declaration  that  one  or  the 
other  of  them  must  be  dismissed.  Sup.  Can.  Archives  Report,  1899,  p. 
213. 

"•Ibid.,  pp.  112,  113,  118,  392. 


I08       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [IO8 

First  Councillor  in  1710.'  The  activity  of  Raudot,  separ- 
ately and  with  the  Council,  in  enacting  police  regulations, 
was  followed  by  a  period  of  inaction  in  that  respect  dur- 
ing Begon's  early  years  of  service.  Whether  it  was  in  a 
spirit  of  independence  or  of  sincere  belief  in  the  need  of 
measures  of  this  nature  that  Martiniere  acted,  is  impos- 
sible to  determine.  It  is  sufficient  that  he  produced  a 
most  illuminating  report  upon  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try and  the  need  of  breaking  the  grain  monopoly  by 
police  ordinances.2  Although  the  Governor  and  Inten- 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  114. 

'The  writing  of  Martiniere,  presented  to  the  Council  on  July  17, 1714, 
ran  as  follows:  Since  the  King  has  withdrawn  the  country  frcm  the 
hands  of  the  old  Company,  snd  has  rendered  the  authority  of  the  Coun- 
cil more  sovereign  than  it  formerly  was,  that  assembly  has  striven  lo 
reform  abuses  in  the  administration  of  jtstice  with  a  diligence  worthy 
of  its  position.  It  has  made  the  people  cbey  previously  neglected  laws 
and  ordinances;  it  has  abolished  length)  and  fcrmless  tri?ls,  ard  regu- 
lated procedure  according  to  usage  and  the  special  needs  of  the  country. 
It  has  enacted,  registered,  promulgated  and  executed  great  numbers  of 
police  regulations,  necessary  as  well  for  the  towns  as  the  country.  New 
Governors  Intendants  and  Councillors  have  found  these  ordinances  to 
be  exceedingly  wise  and  just.  Now  one  speaks  only  of  them  to  blame 
those  who  have  made  them,  not  because  they  dislike  the  regulations, 
but  because  these  measures  are  not  executed.  This  failure  to  execute 
them  has  encouraged  a  feeling  of  disrespect  towards  Councillors.  They 
are  not  content  with  speaking  scornfully  of  the  Ccuncil  in  private  but 
must  express  it  in  public,  on  the  street,  and  even  in  the  houses  of  Coun- 
cil members.  They  may  say  with  impunity  that  it  seems  that  all  their 
power  is  suppressed,  since  they  carrot  have  even  one  minot  of  wheat 
delivered  to  a  mvltitude  {Irfimit}  of  peer  families,  vho  are  reirsed  it 
at  7  or  8  livres  a  minot  cash  (V argent  &  la  wain),  and  consequently  are 
starving  at  a  time  when  the  abundance  cf  wheat  should  reduce  the  price 
to  4  livres.  Far  frcm  selling  it,  they  keep  wheat  and  flour  hidden  until 
a  chance  fcr  shipping  it  out  of  the  colony  occurs,  which  is  so  much  the 
more  dangerous  as  the  colony  sees  itself  threatened  with  famire.  The 
people  anticipated  it  when  they  saw  the  considerable  nvmber  of  vessels 
in  the  roadstead,  these  that  departed  laden  with  grain  and  these  that  are 
yet  to  come.  As  the  interests  of  God,  of  His  Church,  of  the  King,  of 
the  public,  of  widows  and  orphans,  are  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  King's 


109]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    IOOy 

dant  were  absent,  the  Council  took  action  upon  this 
report  and  instructed  the  Attorney-General  to  draw  up 
relief  measures  and  report  at  the  first  meeting  when 
Vsudrcuil  End  Begon  should  be  present. 

On  July  30,  1714,  Governor  and  Intendant  submitted 
their  joint  opinion  of  what  had  happened.  Instruction 
to  the  Attorney-General  to  draw  up  police  regulations 
was  the  initial  step  in  ordinance-making.  As  such  the 
action  of  the  Council  was  surprising,  since  by  his  decree 
of  March  10,  1685,  His  Majesty  had  expressly  forbidden 
the  Council  from  making  any  regulations  relating  to  the 
general  police  in  the  absence  of  Governor  and  Intendant. 
The  Intendant  claimed  that  this  power  could  be  executed 
by  him  separately;  because  the  King,  while  annulling  the 
ordinances  of  August  16,  1684,  of  the  Sovereign  Coun- 
cil, confirmed  those  of  Intendant  Meules  of  August  22 
regulating  the  same  matter.  If  Governor  and  Intendant 
agreed  to  allow  the  flour  to  be  shipped  away,  it  belonged 
to  the  Governor  alone  to  give  passports.  They  there- 
fore considered  the  memoir  of  July  16  as  an  attempt 
against  their  authority.  This  opinion  was  spread  upon 
the  Minutes  and  the  objectionable  decree  was  left  unexe- 
cuted. 

None  of  the  Councillors  disputed  the  reasoning  in  this 
document.  A  d'Auteuil  or  a  Villeray  would  have  ques- 
tioned the  claim  of  an  Intendant  to  make  general  police 
ordinances  on  his  own  responsibility,  or  the  presumption 
that  the  instruction  to  the  Attorney-General  to  present 
certain  propositions  designed  to  remedy  certain  evils 
constituted  a  contravention  of  the  King's  decree  of  March 
10,  1685.  But  now  the  Council  accepted  the  rebuke  and 

officials,  it  seemed  to  M.  de  la  Martiniere  that  provision  should  be 
made  new  or  never,  etc.,  etc.  Jvgements  et  C&lib.,  vol.  vi,  FP-  794~ 
7Q7- 


IIO       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [IIO 

it  was  perhaps  as  well,  for  the  combination  of  Governor 
and  Intendant  was  very  powerful.  The  Council  lost  no 
ground,  for  it  participated  with  the  Intendant  in  making 
the  next  general  police  ordinances.1 

It  was  probable  that  the  action  of  M.  de  la  Martiniere 
was  prompted  not  by  any  intention  of  exalting  the 
political  position  of  the  Council,  but  by  a  genuine  desire 
to  relieve  the  economic  situation.  Less  than  a  month 
later  an  armed  mob  collected  just  outside  of  Quebec  as  a 
protest  against  the  misery  of  the  people  and  the  high 
cost  of  merchandise.  Upon  the  rumor  of  approaching 
troops  the  people  dispersed.  No  energetic  prosecution 
followed.  A  year  later  two  of  the  ringleaders  were 
arrested  by  the  Council,  but  were  delivered  from  prison 
upon  promising  to  appear  when  wanted.  One  lived  with 
the  Lieutenant  General  while  the  other  lived  with  a 
notary.  They  were  apparently  not  of  the  lower  class.2 
When  such  men  led  men  with  arms  in  their  hands  there 
must  have  been  grievances  such  as  Martiniere  described 
in  his  report. 

The  successors  of  Vaudreuil  and  Begon  did  not  work 
so  harmoniously  together.  In  fact  it  was  through  hos- 
tility towards  each  other  that  Charles  Marquis  de  Beau- 
harnais  and  Claude-Thomas  Dupuy  involved  Canada  in 
her  greatest  constitutional  struggle  during  the  eighteenth 
century.  The  atmosphere  was  rendered  electric  by  sev- 
eral minor  flashes  of  temper  and  obstinacy.  Among  the 
first  was  the  episode  of  the  drummer  in  1727.  In  January 
Dupuy  had  occasion  to  issue  a  summons  against  a  certain 
fugitive  from  justice.  It  was  the  custom  to  promulgate 
such  writs  accompanied  to  the  roll  of  the  drum.  In  this 

1  December  2,  1715.    Ibid.,  p.  1056. 

*For  a  summary  of  this  case,  see  ibid.,  p.  997. 


!  1 1  ]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    i  z  l 

instance  the  Intendant  asked  the  Governor  for  a  drummer 
from  the  troops.  The  Governor  refused  the  request  and 
the  Intendant  made  shift  with  a  civilian  drummer.  On 
March  I  he  appointed  the  Sieur  Pierre  Duranceau  to  be 
city  drummer  of  Quebec,  with  instructions  to  assist  the 
bailiffs  on  special  occasions.  Dupuy  communicated  this 
order  to  Governor  Beauharnais,  who  summoned  the 
Intendant  to  repair  at  once  to  his  house  upon  important 
business.  Dupuy  refused  to  respond  to  this  summons 
until  his  order  was  returned.  This  the  Governor  refused 
to  do.  At  length  upon  the  intervention  of  Bishop  St. 
Vallier  the  order  was  returned,  but  the  irritation  was 
considerable.1  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  a  series  of 
events  began  that  made  this  estrangement  of  the  great- 
est significance.  Upon  Christmas  night  Bishop  St.  Val- 
lier breathed  his  last  within  the  walls  of  the  General 
Hospital,  which  he  had  founded  and  honored  with  his 
presence  of  late  years.  The  Cathedral  chapter  of  canons 
decided  that  the  episcopal  chair  was  vacant,  although  M. 
Louis-Francois  de  Mornay  had  performed  the  functions 
of  coadjutor  since  1713,  and  in  that  capacity  governed 
Louisiana.  The  chapter  assumed  the  duty  of  providing 
for  the  government  of  the  diocese  until  another  Bishop 
should  be  appointed.  Lotbiniere,  canon  and  archdeacon, 
was  the  highest  dignitary  in  Canada.  For  various  rea- 
sons he  was  unpopular  with  the  majority  of  the  chapter, 
which  elected  three  Grand  Vicars  to  conduct  the  cere- 
mony of  the  obsequies  of  the  Bishop,  to  the  exclusion 
of  Lotbiniere. 

The  archdeacon  appealed  to  the  Intendant  during  the 
Christmas  recess  of  the  Superior  Council,  asking  that  the 
question  of  title  be  settled  by  that  body.  The  Intendant 

^Supplement  Can.  Arch.  Report,  1899,  pp.  130-131. 


112       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [II2 

promised  to  have  the  canons  cited  before  the  court  at  its 
next  meeting.  He  ordered  them  meanwhile  to  appear 
before  him1  on  Friday,  January  2,  1728,  which  was  the 
eve  of  the  day  set  for  the  burial  of  the  Bishop.  Lot- 
biniere  alone  appeared;  his  opponents  sent  a  paper  which 
stated  that  the  canons  of  Quebec  recognized  no  judge  in 
Canada  capable  of  passing  on  their  dispute  with  Lot- 
biniere,  not  even  the  Superior  Council;  that  they  ap- 
pealed from  the  ordinance  of  the  Intendant  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  State  of  the  King.2  The  third  day  of  January 
witnessed  a  tumultuous  scene.  The  body  of  the  late 
Bishop  was  to  have  been  viewed  in  all  the  churches  of 
Quebec,  ending  with  the  Cathedral,  whence  it  was  to  be 
carried  to  the  parish  church  of  the  General  Hospital  for 
burial.  The  chapter,  so  the  Intendant  alleged,  projected 
a  plan  to  retain  possession  of  the  body,  mitre,  cross  and 
other  pontifical  ornaments  at  the  Cathedral.  To  avoid 
this  scandal  he  had  the  hospitallers,  the  inmates  of  the 
hospital,  and  several  of  the  clergy  and  laity  summoned, 
and  with  full  funeral  service  laid  the  remains  of  the 
Bishop  away  in  the  vault  of  the  special  chapel  built  for 
that  purpose.  The  chapter,  upon  learning  of  this  service, 
claimed  that  the  body  had  been  hidden  rather  than 
buried.  They  had  the  Cathedral  bell  rung  on  pretence 
that  a  fire  had  burst  out  at  the  General  Hospital. 
Thither  they  ran  followed  by  a  crowd  of  people;  they 
burst  into  the  hospital,  thence  into  the  church,  only  to 
find  the  chapel  heavily  draped  in  mourning,  the  tomb 
closed  and  candles  burning  on  the  altar.  In  their  cha- 
grin they  laid  a  temporary  interdict  upon  the  Superior 
and  the  church. 

1  This  narrative  is  taken  from  the  introductory  part  of  an  ordinance 
issued  January  4  by  the  Intendant.    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  322  323. 


U3J    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

On  January  4,  the  Intendant  issued  an  order  forbidding 
them  from  holding  any  solemn  service  until  the  Council 
should  determine  who  should  conduct  it  as  temporary 
head  of  the  parish.  The  Superior  Council  assembled  on 
Monday,  January  5,  and  decreed  that  the  episcopal  chair 
was  not  vacant  in  view  of  the  existence  of  Duplessis  de 
Mornay,  Bishop  of  Eumenia  in  Phrygia.  It  forbade 
Boullard  or  any  one  else  from  taking  the  title  of  Vicar 
General  or  from  using  the  seals  or  performing  any  act 
of  jurisdiction.1  After  vespers  the  next  day  Canon 
Tonnancour  read  a  mandate  explaining  the  attitude  of 
the  chapter.2  It  was  the  first  official  order  of  Boullard 
and  the  other  Vicars  General,  issued  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  the  decree  of  the  Council.  Without  waiting  for 
the  bailiffs  to  summon  the  Councillors  for  an  extraordi- 
nary session,  Dupuy  undertook  to  uphold  the  authority 
of  the  Council  by  an  ordinance  in  which  he  forbade  the 
Vicars  General  to  issue  further  mandates  or  parish  priests 
to  publish  them.3  The  Vicars  General  ignored  this  order, 
issued  a  defiant  mandate  and  sent  out  canons  to  urge 
the  priests  in  the  surrounding  parishes  to  publish  it  and 
to  refuse  obedience  to  the  Council.  The  canons  pro- 
posed to  send  one  of  their  number  to  France  via  New 
England.  The  Intendant  forbade  it  as  an  action  aimed 
at  the  Superior  Council.4 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  327. 

1 "  Considerant  de  plus  que  c'etoit  une  injustice  et  un  affront  au 
Chapitre,  qui  se  tenait  pret  pour  aller,  lever  solennellement  ce  vener- 
able depot,  et  lui  faire  des  obsequies  avec  la  decence  et  la  forme  conven- 
ables,  et  le  reporter  ensuite  avec  la  meme  pompe  funebre  au  dit  hopital 
general."  Mandements  des  Eveques  de  Quebec,  vol.  i,  pp.  522-523. 

'Ordinance  of  January  6,  1728.    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  327-329. 

4<<C'est  dans  de  pareilles  circonstances  qu'il  est  de  notre  devoir 
d'empecher  toutes  demarches  indirectes  et  suspectes,  etant  aussi  pen 
convenable  que  Sa  Majeste  soit  informe  par  dautre  quie  par  son  Conseil 


II4       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [II4 

The  ecclesiastics  must  have  been  assured  of  the  passive 
support  of  Beauharnais.  Otherwise  they  would  hardly 
have  dared  to  take  such  a  bold  stand.  In  March  the 
Governor  actively  entered  the  field  as  their  champion. 
Usually  in  questions  involving  ecclesiastics  the  Intendant 
took  their  side,  but  in  this  instance  the  situation  was 
reversed.  On  March  8,  Beauharnais  entered  the  Council 
with  his  secretary  and  read  an  order  to  the  Council  to 
enact  no  further  decree  in  the  "Boullard  affair";  and  to 
prosecute  the  case  no  farther  by  receiving  petitions  or 
responses  from  witnesses  already  cited.  At  the  same 
time  he  suspended  all  ordinances  already  passed  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  passed  without  his  participation.1 
He  forbade  the  bailiffs  from  executing  summonses  or 
promulgating  orders  not  sanctioned  by  him.  He  ordered 
the  Grand  Provost  to  take  his  four  constables  or  tip- 
staffs unarmed  to  the  Chateau  St.  Louis,  thus  seeking  to 
make  the  Superior  Council  helpless.  The  Intendant  as 
head  of  the  police  enjoined  the  Grand  Provost  to  disre- 
gard any  orders  of  the  Governor  pertaining  to  justice  or 
to  the  decrees  of  the  Superior  Council.2  The  order  of 
Beauharnais,  aiming  to  destroy  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Council  over  the  "  Boullard  affair,"  was  promulgated  at 
the  head  of  the  troops  to  the  roll  of  the  drums  and  the 
cry  of  "Vive  le  Roi !  et  Beauharnais !  " 

This  order  was  followed  by  another  forbidding  the 
authorities  throughout  the  country  to  receive  the  de- 
crees of  the  Superior  Council.  On  March  27  it  called 

Superieur  meme  des  motifs  de  ses  Arrets,  qu'il  serait  peu  apropos  et 
meme  dangereux  que  ses  subjets  .  .  .  aller  en  France,  la  voie  detournee 
de  la  Nouvelle-Angleterre."  Doutre  et  Lareau,  L'Histoire  du  Droii 
du  Canada,  vol.  i,  p.  272. 

llbid.,  p.  273. 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  330-331. 


THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    u$ 

out  a  masterly  ordinance  from  Dupuy  ordering  the  re- 
ception and  publication  of  such  decrees.  He  maintained 
that  the  attempted  attack  upon  the  Council  had  devel- 
oped into  an  attack  upon  the  authority  of  the  King, 
which  was  eminently  resident  in  his  Superior  Council, 
charged  as  well  as  other  parlements  and  superior  councils 
with  the  most  precious  part  of  the  Majesty  of  kings,  i.  e. 
the  administration  of  their  sovereign  justice;  that  a  re- 
bellious clergy  had  been  protected  and  the  troops  had 
been  forced  to  disobey  the  decrees  of  the  Superior 
Council;  that  the  action  taken  subsequently  to  a  dis- 
agreement between  authorities  depended  upon  the  de- 
partment of  government  concerned;  that  therefore  if  the 
Superior  Council  disagreed  with  the  Governor  in  a 
matter  which  concerned  the  administration  of  justice, 
the  decree  of  the  Council  should  be  executed;  that  simi- 
larly if  a  diversity  arose  between  Governor  and  Intendant 
relating  to  matters  of  common  interest,  the  decision  of 
the  former  was  paramount  whenever  war  and  military 
discipline  were  involved;  that  except  in  those  matters 
the  Governor  had  no  right  to  make  an  ordinance  inde- 
pendently or  to  interfere  with  the  officers  of  justice;1 
that  there  was  no  one  who  could  wrest  the  guilty  from 
the  hands  of  the  judges  without  betraying  his  duty;  and 
that  still  less  could  any  one  excuse  the  people  from  the 
obedience  which  they  owed  to  the  King  and  consequently 
to  the  orders  of  his  justice.3 

'"Le  Gouverneur  et  lieutenant  general  dans  le  Canada  n'a  aucune 
autorite  sur  les  cases  d'amiraute,  et  nulle  direction  sur  les  officiers  qui 
rendent  la  justice  "  iReglement  de  1684,  signe  du  roi  et  de  Colbert,  et 
nombre  d'autres  reglements  rendus  depuis  dans  le  meme  sens).  Gar- 
neau,  vol.  ii,  p.  118. 

2  The  whole  ordinance  is  very  interesting.  See  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii, 
PP.  333-336. 


U6       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

In  the  weeks  following,  scenes  of  tumultuous  and 
outrageous  character  occurred.  On  March  30  the  gar- 
rison of  the  Fort  cut  to  pieces  the  ordinances  of  the 
Council  and  the  decrees  of  His  Majesty.  On  April  9 
the  prisons  were  opened  and  the  prisoners  were  set  free, 
and  on  May  6  the  Chateau  St.  Louis  was  offered  by  the 
Governor  as  an  asylum  for  the  liberated  prisoners. 
Meanwhile  the  Governor  imprisoned  four  officers  who 
had  disapproved  of  his  course  of  action.1  On  May  13 
he  instituted  "  lettres  de  cachet"  in  Canada,  by  which  he 
ordered  the  Sieur  Gaillard  to  Beaupre  and  the  Sieur 
d'Artigny  to  Beaumont.2 

The  Council  wavered ;  Crispin,  who  had  voted  with 
the  others  upon  measures  to  be  taken,  now  refused  to 
perform  certain  functions  delegated  to  him  in  the  strug- 
gle. The  Council  suspended  him.  The  Intendant,  on 
May  29,  issued  an  order  to  the  Councillors  to  remain  at 
their  posts,  notwithstanding  the  lettre  de  cachet  of  Beau- 
harnais.  He  cited  his  commission  and  his  position  as 
president  of  the  Council  as  reasons  that  Councillors 
should  have  regard  for  his  ordinance  and  he  affirmed  that 
the  Governor  had  no  power  over  the  officers  of  justice. 

During  the  summer,  however,  the  defection  of  several 
Councillors  decided  the  Intendant  to  hand  in  his  resigna- 
tion. This  decision  was  strengthened  by  the  failure  of  the 
Minister  to  support  him.  Cardinal  Fleury,  who  had 
replaced  Cardinal  Dubois  as  prime  minister,  was  in  the 
midst  of  the  acrimonius  controversy  over  the  papal  bull 
Unigenitus,  which  disturbed  France  during  more  than 
half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  This  bull  which  was  a 

1  Narrative  by  the  Intendant  in  his  ordinance  of  May  29.  Doutre  et 
Lareau,  vol.  ii,  p.  279.  This  is  confirmed  in  detail  by  a  letter  from  him 
to  Elie  Faure,  under  date  of  May  28. 

•For  this  lettre  de  cachet,  see  ibid.,  p.  278. 


II7]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    uy 

sweeping  condemnation  of  Jansenism  was  extremely  un- 
popular in  France  and  thereiore  when  fn  1727  the  pro-: 
vincial  convocation  of  Embrun  condemned  the  Bishop  of 
Senez,  who  with  other  bishops  had  refused  to  accept  the 
bull  and  had  demanded  a  general  council,  the  Parlement 
and  bar  of  Paris  rose  against  the  decision  and  later  refused 
to  register  the  bull.  Thus  defeated  in  his  policy  at  home, 
it  is  not  strange  that  the  Cardinal  Minister  was  glad  to 
support  the  ecclesiastical  against  the  secular  power  in  the 
French  dependencies  over  seas.  Accordingly  in  this  case 
Dupuy  was  recalled,  and  on  June  I,  the  Comte  de 
Maurepas,  minister  and  secretary  of  State,  wrote  to 
Beauharnais  that  the  King  desired  the  Superior  Council 
to  restore  the  ecclesiastical  property  taken  from  the  can- 
ons of  the  cathedral,  Vicar  General  Boullard,  and  the 
Recollets  by  the  decrees  of  January  5,  12,  and  26,  Feb- 
ruary 3  and  16  and  the  first  and  eighth  of  the  previous 
month.  At  a  meeting  held  September  17  attended  by 
the  Governor  and  nine  of  the  Councillors,  action  was 
taken  upon  this  letter.  As  evidence  of  the  most  profound 
submission  to  His  Majesty's  wishes,  the  Council  voted 
the  restoration  of  the  disseised  ecclesiastics  and  the  anul- 
ment  or  repayment  of  the  fines  laid  during  the  dispute.1 
At  the  time,  this  action  promised  ill  for  the  Superior 
Council;  but  with  M.  Dupuy,  hopeless  of  success,  mak- 
ing his  peace  with  the  King,  and  other  Council  members 
banished  from  the  city,  this  recession  from  their  position 

1 "  Vu  au  Conseil  1'extrait  de  la  lettre  de  Monsieur  le  Comte  de  Mau- 
repas, etc.,  le  Conseil  pour  donner  a  Sa  Majeste  des  preuves  de  sa  pro- 
fonde  soumission,  fait  des  a  present  main-levee  des  dites  saisies  pro- 
noncees  par  les  dits  Arrets;  decharge  des  dites  amendcs,  ordonne  la 
restitution  d'icelles,  si  aucune,  en  tout  oil  en  partie,  out  etc  exigees; 
declare  ceux  entre  les  mains  de  qui  les  dites  saisies  auront  etc  faites, 
bien  et  valablement  decharges,  en  payant  aux  parties  saisies  ce  qui  leur 
est  du  sur  1'expedition  du  present  Arret."  Ibid.,  pp.  281-282. 


ng       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [ng 

was  perhaps  natural.  Still  the  Councillors  could  not  but 
have  felt  the  defeat  and  the  disgrace  of  this  moment  of 
surrender.  This  feeling  must  have  been  increased  when 
on  October  4  the  banished  Councillors  d'Artigny  and 
Gaillard  returned  to  the  Council.  Instead  of  receiving 
them  as  heroes,  that  assembly  voted  that  they  should 
refrain  from  taking  their  seats  until  the  order  given  by 
the  Governor  to  retire  to  Beaumont  and  Beaupre  should 
be  rescinded.1  The  Councillors  saw  that  submission 
even  to  the  exclusion  of  their  former  leaders  was  the 
only  course  to  pursue.  Such  men  as  Councillor  Hazeur 
even  sought  by  abject  letters  to  regain  the  favor  of  the 
Minister.2 

The  cloud  had  a  silver  lining,  however.  The  restora- 
tion of  property  and  fines  to  rebellious  clergy,  which 
meant  the  annulling  of  certain  ordinances  of  the  Superior 
Council,  was  indeed  humiliating,  but  the  principle  of 
episcopal  succession  as  laid  down  in  its  decree  of  January 
5  was  maintained  by  the  home  Government.  Mgr.  de 

'Garneau,  vol.  ii,  p.  120;  Supplement  Can.  Archives  Report,  1899, 
p.  135- 

*"  .  .  .  la  lettre  qui  a  este  envoyee  a  Sa  Majeste  et  que  jay  signe  sur 
lespressantes  solicitations  et  raisons  demonstratives  que  M.  Dupuy  m'a 
fait,  me  representant  qu'il  estoit  de  la  derniere  importance  d'en  agir 
ainsy  affin  de  soutenir  avec  honneur  1'authorite  de  Sa  Majeste  les  droits 
et  privileges  du  Conseil.  Prevenu  a  la  verite  que  jetois  monsieur,  de 
1'erudition  de  M.  Dupuy  et  estant  tres  peu  experimente  dans  ces  sortes 
d'affaires  n'estant  au  surplus  arrive  nulle  exemple  en  ce  pays  de  cette 
sorte,  il  m'etoit  tres  difficile  de  ne  pas  donner  dans  un  sentiment  qui 
m'etoit  expose  avec  autant  de  probabilite  en  d'apparence  de  verite. 
J'ay  reconnus  depuis,  mais  a  la  verite  trop  tard  combien  et  jusqu'a  quel 
point  j'avois  este  abuze  en  le  voile  epais  qu'il  m'avoit  mis  devant  les 
yeux.  Je  me  voyois,  Monsieur,  sans  ressource  lorsque  j'ay  fait  reflec- 
tions a  vostre  equite  et  a  vostre  justice  et  je  me  suis  flatte  que  vous 
voudries  bien  avoir  egard  a  mon  innocence  et  croire  qu'en  suivant  le 
party  de  M.  Dupuy,  j'ay  cru  estre  dans  le  vrai  chemin  de  la  justice," 
etc.  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  1,  p.  135  et  seq. 


II9]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY 

Mornay  as  next  in  dignity  in  the  diocese  succeeded 
Bishop  St.  Vallier  as  Bishop  of  Quebec.  Lotbiniere  as 
Mornay's  attorney,  after  annoying  attempts  at  hindrance 
from  the  canons,  performed  the  act  of  taking  possession, 
which  was  sustained  by  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  State 
dated  March  2,  1729.'  Meanwhile  the  canons  had 
ordered  a  Te  Deum  to  be  sung  in  gratitude  for  the 
appointment  of  Mornay  as  their  Bishop. 

The  next  thirty  years  produced  few  situations  of  in- 
terest for  the  historian  of  the  .Superior  Council.  The 
personnel  shifted  somewhat  rapidly.  It  will  be  sufficient 
here  to  indicate  these  changes  in  a  general  way.  Martin- 
iere  was  succeeded  by  Delino  as  First  Councillor.  Fran- 
gois-Etienne  Cugnet,  an  able  man  and  a  scholar,  served  in 
this  position  until  his  death  in  1751,  when  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Francois  Foucalt,  who  generally  presided 
over  the  Council  during  the  rest  of  its  existence. 

Undoubtedly  there  were  many  honest  Councillors,  but 
some  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  sat  about  the  Council 
board.  Still  of  the  fifty-five  persons  who  were  charged 
with  defrauding  the  King  there  were  but  four  whose 
names  were  in  any  way  connected  with  the  Superior 
Council.  Varin  had  departed  early  with  his  loot  and 
Estebe  sailed  for  France  in  1758  with  a  large  fortune. 
Intendant  Bigot  desired  to  follow  a  like  course  of  action, 
but  the  demands  for  his  services  in  the  critical  part  of 
the  war  kept  him  in  Canada  until  the  English  conquest 

'  After  securing  two  long  adjournments  the  canons  contrived  by  cun- 
ning means  to  avoid  meeting  with  Lotbiniere  to  perform  the  necessary 
ceremonies.  They  absented  themselves  from  the  chapter  house,  ordered 
the  beadle  not  to  ring  the  cathedral  bell  to  summon  them,  and  removed 
the  rope  from  the  chapter-house  bell.  When  Lotbiniere  took  possession 
without  them,  they  claimed  the  action  was  illegal  because  clandestine. 
It  was  this  dispute  that  the  Council  of  State  decided.  Supplement  Can. 
Archives  Report,  1899,  pp.  235-236. 


I2o       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I2o 

was  complete.  Although  the  great  majority  of  Coun- 
cillors cast  no  dishonor  upon  that  institution,  as  the 
eighteenth  century  advanced  the  Council  failed  to  attract 
the  most  intelligent  and  enterprising  Canadians.  In  a 
letter  dated  January  8,  1759,  the  Minister  observed  that 
the  educated  class  in  Canada  appeared  to  prefer  trade  to 
law  and  public  service.  He  was  surprised  that  none 
offered  themselves  to  fill  the  vacant  offices  of  Councillor.1 
There  remains  only  the  sad  story  of  the  end.  By  No- 
vember 24,  1759,  the  situation  of  the  Superior  Council 
had  become  pitiful.  Upon  the  surrender  of  Quebec  it 
had  begun  its  sessions  in  Montreal.  It  was  forced  to 
borrow  a  bailiff  from  the  local  court  of  that  city,  as  its 
own  bailiffs  were  too  poor  to  follow  the  court.  Its  busi- 
ness had  so  fallen  off  that  the  Attorney-General  proposed 
to  substitute  a  regular  monthly  session  for  the  weekly 
Saturday  meeting,  which  was  then  the  rule.2  The  Coun- 
cil made  a  formal  announcement  concerning  place  of 
residence  and  meeting.  It  said  that  it  continued  its 
service  in  Montreal  because  there  Governor.  Bishop  and 
Intendant  resided  and  that  in  order  to  conform  most 
closely  to  the  King's  intention,  it  would  hold  all  its  ses- 
sions in  the  "  Palace"  in  which  the  Intendant  lived.  The 
proclamation  ended  by  setting  December  17  as  the  next 
day  of  meeting,  providing  for  the  widespread  announce- 
ment of  this  session.  When  it  was  thought  to  be  advis- 
able to  fix  a  date  nearly  four  weeks  later  as  the  meet- 
ing-time of  the  Superior  Council,  it  is  evident  that 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Miry,  series  F  iii,  vol.  xiii,  p.  174. 

1 "  .  .  il  seroit  inutile  de  s'as«embler,  suivant  1'usage  ordinaire  du  Con- 
seil,  tous  les  samedis  de  chaque  semaine,  n'y  ayant  aucune  affaire;  il 
estime  qu'il  suffiroit  que  le  conseil  voulut  indiquer  un  jour  certain  dans 
le  cours  du  mois  prochain  ou  sera  fixee  la  rendree  ordinaire  du  dit  Con- 
seil," etc.  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  254. 


I2i]    THE  COUNCIL  IN  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY    I2i 

the  Councillors  realized  the  moribund  condition  of  the 
Court.  Let  us  leave  it  planning  no  farther  ahead  than 
one  more  meeting,  content  if  only  the  seventeenth  of 
December  might  be  reached.  Let  us  leave  it  protesting 
its  loyalty  to  a  King,1  who  so  unwisely  wasted  his  re- 
sources in  fighting  Austria's  battles  in  Germany,  instead 
of  supplanting  Bigot  and  his  parasites  by  honest  men  and 
French  troops. 

*"  .  .  que  le  conseil  superieur,  toujours  conduit  par  le  desir  qu'il  a  de 
donner  a  Sa  Majeste,  des  preuves  de  son  zele  en  rendant  sans  interrup- 
tion la  justice  a  ses  sujets,"  etc.  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  IV 

MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 
Personnel 

THE  membership  of  the  Conseil  Superieur  (n-e  Souverain) 
was  repeatedly  increased.  As  we  have  seen,  the  first  Coun- 
cil was  composed  of  the  Governor  General,  the  Bishop,  five 
Councillors,  an  Attorney-General,  a  clerk,  and  an  attendant 
called  an  usher  or  bailiff.  A  special  commissioner  of  the 
King  sat  in  the  first  Council  for  several  weeks.1  He  had 
no  official  title,  but  the  Council  permitted  him  the  title  of 
Intendant  in  its  minutes.  The  first  official  to  exercise  the 
powers  of  Intendant  and  to  enjoy  the  title  also,  took  his 
seat  in  the  Council  on  July  6,  1665.  With  the  exception  of 
the  three  years  following  Talon's  administration  and  a  few 
months  following  the  departure  of  Dupuy  in  1728,  the  In- 
tendant was  continuously  a  member  of  the  Council  until 
the  English  conquest.2 

In  1674,  two  ordinary  Councillors  were  added.  The 
King's  declaration  of  June  5,  1675,  confirmed  these  ap- 
pointments and  provided  that  there  should  henceforth  be 
seven  ordinary  Councillors.3  In  1703,  the  number  was 

1  Gaudais  is  not  spoken  of  as  Intendant  in  either  his  commission  or 
his  instructions.  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  vol.  iii,  pp.  22-27.  The  Coun- 
cil record  of  November  28,  1665,  speaks  of  him  as  "Monsieur  le  Gou- 
verneur".  Jugements  et  Deliberations,  vol.  i,  p.  67. 

1  Agremont  served  as  de  facto  Intendant  but  without  commission  until 
Hocquart  arrived. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  83-84. 

122  [122 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

raised  to  twelve  and  such  it  remained.  The  normal  compo- 
sition of  the  Council  in  later  times  consisted  of  the  Gover- 
nor General,  the  Bishop,  the  Intendant,  twelve  Councillors, 
the  Attorney-General,  the  secretary  or  chief  clerk,  and  the 
bailiffs. 

There  were,  however,  many  extraordinary  members  sit- 
ting at  different  times  in  the  Council.  While  the  colonial 
government  was  nominally  under  the  control  of  the  Com- 
pany of  the  West  Indies,  the  general  agent  of  that  Company 
had  the  right  to  sit  and  to  vote  in  the  Sovereign  Council 
meetings.1  While  Tracy,  the  King's  Viceroy  in  all  the 
Americas,  was  in  Quebec,  he  presided  over  the  Council. 
During  1665  and  1666  a  preponderance  of  great  officials 
was  noticeable  in  its  composition :  Lieutenant  General  of 
all  America,  Governor  General  of  Canada,  Bishop  of  Petraea 
(later  to  be  Bishop  of  Quebec),  Intendant,  General  Agent 
of  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies — such  were  the  most 
dignified  members  of  the  Council.  In  1679  the  provost  of 
the  Marechaussee  was  permitted  to  serve  as  Councillor  in 
cases  that  concerned  breach  of  the  peace.2  In  1733  the 
Commissioner  of  Marine  serving  at  Montreal  was  granted 
admission  to  the  Superior  Council  with  the  right  to  a  seat 
and  deliberative  voice.3 

In   1742  assistant  judges   (assesseurs  cm  conseil)   were 

1  Le  Barrois,  Basire  and  La  Chesnaye,  successively  held  this  post. 
There  is  evidence  of  the  great  activity  of  the  first  and  third.  Edits  et 
Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  51-60,  and  Collection  de  Manuscrits  de  Nouvelle  France, 
vol.  i,  pp.  245-61. 

*  Until  the  King  had  created  the  proper  number  of  judges  for  the 
court  of  the  provost  of  the  Marechaussee,  the  Provost  "aura  seance 
et  voix  deliberative  en  notre  dit  conseil  de  Quebec,  apres  le  dernier 
conseiller,  sans  ce  que  sur  ce  pretexte  il  y  puisse  prendre  seance  ni 
avoir  voix  deliberative  dans  les  autres  affaires."    Ibid.,  p.  238. 

*  Royal  Letters  Patent  of  April  7,  1733.    Collection  Moreau  St.  Mery, 
Series  F  iii,  vol.  xii,  p.  137. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I24 

added  to  the  number  of  active  Councillors.  The  Governor 
and  Intendant  might  appoint  as  many  as  four  assistant 
judges,1  who  should  eventually  become  Councillors.  Until 
1703  the  Bishop  was  allowed  to  be  represented  by  a  substi- 
tute, who  was  usually  the  Grand  Vicar.  The  increase  of  the 
Council  in  that  year  included  a  clerical  Councillor,  and  since 
after  his  admission  there  was  no  longer  need  that  the  Bishop 
should  have  the  right  to  send  a  representative,  that  privi- 
lege was  withdrawn.2 

In  theory  the  privilege  of  voting  by  proxy  belonged  to 
Councillors,  but  in  practice  it  was  rarely  used.  Several 
commissions  were  granted  providing  that  sons  should  rep- 
resent their  fathers  in  their  absence  and  become  full  Coun- 
cillors upon  their  deaths,  but  no  son  actually  sat  in  the  Coun- 
cil during  his  father's  lifetime,  with  the  exception  of  the 
younger  Raudot,  who  performed  the  financial  duties  of  In- 
tendant and  presided  over  the  Council  during  his  father's 
absence.3  Representation  of  the  Bishop  by  proxy  until  1703 
and  of  Raudot  during  the  years  1705  to  1712,  were  the 
only  instances  of  the  kind. 

Beginning  with  the  second  decade  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, demands  were  made  upon  the  King  to  appoint  honor- 
ary Councillors.  On  June  4,  1711,  the  minister  responded 
that  His  Majesty  would  not  appoint  any  person  as  honor- 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  561-563. 

'The  Declaration  of  1675  says:  "1'eveque  de  Quebec,  ou  en  son 
absence  du  dit  pays  et  lorsquil  passera  en  ce  royaume  settlement,  de  son 
grand  vicaire";  the  Declaration  of  1703  provides  for  the  Bishop's  at- 
tendance alone  and  proceeds  to  say,  "  et  au  moyen  de  la  creation  du  dit 
conseiller-clerc  le  dit  grand-vicaire  ne  pourra  dorenavant  prendre  place 
au  dit  conseil  sous  pretexte  d'absence  du  dit  sieur  eveque  ou  autre- 
ment".  Ibid.,  p.  300. 

'The  commission  of  Raudot  fits,  provides:  "nous  vous  avons  corn- 
mis,  ordonne,  et  depute,  etc.  pour  en  1'absence,  maladie  ou  autre  legi- 
time  empechement,  meme  a  son  defaut,  nous  servir  en  la  dite  qualite 
d'intendant."  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  62. 


I25]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

ary  Councillor  who  had  not  first  served  as  Councillor.  In 
pursuance  of  this  rule,  the  King  named  Estebe  honorary 
Councillor.  Estebe  had  been  Councillor  and  Commissioner 
of  Marine,  had  amassed  a  large  fortune  (ironically  enough, 
at  the  expense  of  the  government),  and  had  now  resigned 
from  the  Council  as  a  step  preparatory  to  his  departure  for 
France.  "  As  a  mark  of  satisfaction  for  M.  Estebe's  long 
services,"  the  King,  on  February  i,  1758,  gave  him  the 
necessary  commission,  providing  for  the  enjoyment  of  all 
the  honors,  privileges,  and  franchises  of  active  Councillors, 
and  for  the  right  to  attend  any  meeting.  Estebe  was,  how- 
ever, not  to  receive  any  salary  or  emolument.1  This  ap- 
pointment, the  only  one  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge,  was 
not  a  particularly  happy  one. 

The  greatest  possible  membership,  to  which  the  Council 
could  attain  during  the  forty  years  it  was  called  the  Sover- 
eign Council,  was  twelve,  including  the  Attorney-General 
and  the  chief  clerk.  The  average  actual  attendance  was 
about  seven.  In  the  later  period  the  greatest  possible  num- 
ber, including  two  assistant  judges  (four  assistant  judges 
never  held  office  at  once),  the  provost  of  the  Marechaussee, 
the  Commissioner  of  Marine,  and  honorary  Councillor,  was 
twenty-two;  the  average  attendance  was  between  nine  and 
ten.  It  appears  therefore  that  these  special  members  at- 
tended Council  sessions  but  rarely.  The  assistant  judges 
were,  however,  valuable  additions,  and  were  faithful  in  their 
attendance. 

Appointment 

In  regard  to  the  appointment  of  Councillors,  the  King 
tried  various  experiments.  By  the  Edict  of  Establishment 
he  entrusted  appointments  to  the  Governor  and  Bishop 
jointly.  The  illegal  dismissal  of  Villeray,  Auteuil  and 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  116. 


126       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I26 

Bourdon  by  Governor  Mesy  and  the  appointment  of  Lotbin- 
iere  upon  his  own  responsibility,1  followed  at  the  end  of  the 
year  by  the  appointment  of  his  five  friends,  proved  that 
joint  action  in  making  appointments  was  almost  an  impos- 
sibility. 

When  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies  was  organized  in 
1664,  the  appointment  of  Councillors  was  one  of  the  broad 
powers  granted  to  it.2  Before  the  Company  had  a  chance 
to  use  the  power,  the  King  authorized  Tracy,  Courcelles, 
and  Talon  to  reconstruct  the  Council  as  they  chose.3  They 
did  so,  but  the  general  agent  of  the  Company,  anxious  to 
save  something  for  the  future,  proposed  that  the  Governor 
and  Intendant  should  grant  commissions  in  the  King's  name 
to  the  nominees  of  the  Company.4  The  Bishop  was  thus 
deprived  of  participation  in  the  process  of  making  new 
Councillors.  Between  1665  and  1674  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  Company  used  its  power,  which  was  in  fact  appro- 
priated by  the  Governor,  who  on  January  16  and  August 
21,  1673,  appointed  Vitre  and  Peiras  to  fill  certain  vacan- 
cies.5 In  his  annual  speech  Frontenac  gently  reminded 
Councillors  of  his  ability  to  retain  or  dismiss  them.6  The 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  121  and  129. 

1 "  et  ou  il  sera  besoin  d'etablir  des  conseils  souverains,  les  officiers 
dont  ils  seront  composes,  nous  seront  nommes  et  presentes  par  les 
directeurs  genereux  de  la  dite  Compagnie ;  et  sur  les  dites  nominations 
les  provisions  seront  expedites."  Article  xxxi,  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i, 
p.  46- 

3  Lettres,  Instructions,  et  Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  389- 

4 "  Que  ...  les  officiers  du  Conseil  Souverain  soit  nommes  par  la 
dite  Compagnie  sur  leurs  nominations,  les  provisions  leur  en  etre  par 
vous  expedites  au  nom  de  Sa  Majeste,"  Article  ii  of  M.  Barroys'  Pro- 
positions to  MM.  de  Tracy,  de  Courcelles,  and  Talon.  Edits  et  Ord., 
vol.  i,  p.  53- 

6  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  709,  763. 

'"j'ay  cru  ne  devoir  aporter  cette  annee  d'autre  changement  dans  le 
Conseil  Souverain,  que  celuy  de  remplir  la  charge  qui  y  estoit  vaccante, 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

Councillors  were  undoubtedly  uneasy  concerning  this  tenure 
— "  during  pleasure  "  of  the  Governor — and  welcomed  the 
introduction  of  royal  commissions. 

In  1674,  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies  employed  its 
power  of  appointment  for  the  first  time,  but  not  according 
to  the  agreement  of  1665.  Instead  of  applying  to  the  Gov- 
ernor (the  post  of  Intendant  was  vacant  at  the  time)  for 
commissions  for  their  appointees,  Auteuil  and  Villeray, 
they  applied  to  the  King.1  After  this,  royal  commissions 
were  held  to  be  superior  titles  to  office.  Holders  of  them 
claimed  precedence  over  Councillors  who  had  none.  Lot- 
biniere,  who  had  also  been  given  a  commission  by  the  King, 
claimed  that  he  should  be  given  a  place  of  honor  at  the 
Council  board,2  and  the  other  Councillors  asked  the  Gov- 
ernor to  obtain  royal  commissions  for  them.3  The  Gover- 
nor consented  and  in  September,  1675,  all  the  Councillors 
were  provided  with  royal  commissions..  Henceforth,  ex- 
cept in  rare  cases,4  appointments  were  made  and  commis- 
sions issued,  directly  by  the  King.5 

d'une  personne  qui  se  conformant  sur  vos  exemples  essayera  sans  doute 
a  ne  me  pas  donner  lieu  de  me  repentir  de  1'avoir  choisie,  pour 
1'occuper."  Ibid.,  pp.  707-708. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  859  et  seq. 

2 "  Et  luy  ayant  este  indique  une  place  apres  celuy  de  la  Compagnie 
qui  estoit  le  dernier  en  reception,  Le  diet  sieur  De  Lotbinniere  a  diet 
qu'il  pretendoit  avoir  une  autre  place  atendu  qu'aucun  de  la  Compagnie 
n'est  pourvu  du  Roy  comme  luy."  Ibid.,  p.  857. 

8  In  his  annual  speech  of  January  1675  Frontenac  refers  to  "  La 
commission  que  j'ay  bien  voulu  prendre  a  vos  prieres  en  me  chargeant 
d'escrire  a  la  Cour  pour  vous  faire  obtenir  de  Sa  Majeste  des  provisions 
de  vos  charges."  Ibid.,  p.  889. 

4  The  Intendant  practically  appointed  Auteuil  to  succeed  his  father. 
Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  342. 

5  Says  the  Declaration  of  1675 :  "  vacation  avenant,  nous  pourvoirons 
a  1'avenir  de  plein  droit."    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  84.    Reference  has 
been  made  to  the  blank  commission  filled  out  by  the  Intendant  in  1679. 


I28       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I2g 

In  later  times  there  were  four  ways  by  which  an  aspirant 
might  become  a  Councillor.  First,  he  might  impress  either 
the  Governor  or  the  Intendant  with  a  sense  of  his  fitness  for 
the  office.  Correspondence  between  these  officials  and  the 
minister  was  filled  with  a  discussion  of  the  qualifications 
of  different  candidates  for  office.  For  instance,  in.  1709, 
Raudot  wrote  that  Martiniere  asked  for  the  office  of  First 
Councillor;  that  he  would  have  been  senior  Councillor  had 
he  remained  in  the  Council;  that  Sieur  Delino  asked  for 
the  office  of  Martiniere,  if  he  were  promoted;  and  that 
Gaillard  and  Vincelotte  would  be  suitable  persons  to  fill 
the  two  vacancies.1  The  King  followed  no  set  rule.  In 
many  cases,  however,  he  appointed  according  to  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  highest  officials. 

Secondly,  a  man  might  petition  the  King  directly  to  con- 
sider him  for  an  appointment. 

In  the  third  place,  the  office  might  come  in  reversion. 
Although  positions  were  not  hereditary  as  in  the  Parlement 
of  Paris,  in  a  number  of  instances  Councillors  obtained  com- 
missions providing  for  the  reversion  of  their  offices  to  their 
sons  upon  their  deaths.2  The  King  did  not  desire  that  the 
office  of  Councillor  should  pass  from  father  to  son  as  an 
inheritance,3  but  nevertheless  recognized  that  the  family  of 
a  Councillor  had  some  claim  upon  the  office.  For  example, 
in  1698,  he  gave  the  position  of  Councillor,  which  Damours 
de  Freneuse  found  impossible  to  fill,  to  Riverin,  only  upon 
condition  that  he  pay  1,000  livres  to  the  Damours  family.4 
This  provision  for  compensation  and  the  grant  of  commis- 

1  MM.  Raudot,  father  and  son,  to  Pontchartrain,  October  28,  1709. 
Extract  from  Supplement  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  221. 

*  Tilly,  Damours,  Auteuil,  Lotbiniere,  Guillemin,  and  Dupuy,  are 
mentioned  in  this  connection. 

1  Minister  to  Auteuil,  May  28,  1702.    Ibid.,  p.  362. 

4  Minister  to  the  Bishop  of  Quebec,  May  21.    Ibid.,  p.  332. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION  I2p 

sions  by  reversion  marked  the  limits  of  the  King's  conces- 
sion to  occasional  demands  that  the  office  of  Councillor 
should  be  made  hereditary.  Each  ambitious  father  was 
compelled  to  seek  a  commission  for  his  son  not  as  a  right 
but  as  a  favor.1 

The  fourth  way  of  entering  the  Council  was  by  promo- 
tion from  the  position  of  assistant  judge  or  assesseur. 
About  1740  the  King  decided  that  candidates  who  had  ob- 
tained a  knowledge  of  jurisprudence  should  take  prece- 
dence of  all  others.  The  Attorney-General  gave  Cugnet  and 
Guillemin  lessons  in  law.  On  September  20,  1741,  Gov- 
ernor and  Intendant  gave  a  commission  to  the  latter,  ap- 
pointing him  to  the  office  of  Assistant  Councillor  of  the  Su- 
perior Council.  In  the  spring  of  1742  the  King  wrote  Beau- 
harnais  and  Hocquart  assuring  them  that  Guillemin  would 
be  appointed  Councillor  if  they  reported  that  they  were 
satisfied  with  his  ability  and  services.2  In  August  of  the 
same  year  the  King  definitely  provided  for  such  a  system 
of  promotion.  The  office  of  assesseur  was  created  as  an  en- 
couragement to  persons  to  make  themselves  capable  of  fill- 
ing the  post  of  Councillor.3  Guillemin,  Perthius,  Nouchet, 
Cugnet  the  younger,  and  others,  entered  the  Council  in  con- 
sequence of  such  preparatory  service.4 

1  The  family  of  Lotbiniere  was  the  only  one  that  held  office  beyond 
the  second  generation :  the  old  families  seemed  to  die  out. 

*  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  vol.  ii,  F  folios  33,  69,  in  Ibid.,  pp.  190-191. 

*  "  L' Attention  continuelle  que  nous  donnons  a  1'administration  de  la 
justice   dans   nos   colonies,  nous   a   porte,   depuis   quelques   annees,   a 
autoriser  les  Gouverneurs  et  entendans  a  etablir  des  assesseurs  dans  nos 
conseils   superieurs,  non-seulement  pour  y  accelerer  1'expedition   des 
affaires,  mais  encore  pour  mettre  ces  assesseurs  a  portee  de  se  rendre 
de  plus  en  plus  capables  de  remplir  les  charges  de  conseillers,  etc. ;  nous 
avons  la  satisfaction  de  reconnoitre  par  1'experience  que  cet  etablisse- 
ment  repond  a  nos  vues  et  qu'il  est  terns  de  lui  donner  une  forme  stable 
et  authentique."    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  561. 

4  The  custom  was  to  grant  the  assessor  a  commission  as  Councillor 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Election  to  office  was  almost  unknown.  No  case  of  per- 
manent occupancy  of  an  office  in  the  Council  upon  such  a 
title  exists.  Temporary  appointments  were,  however,  made 
by  the  Council.1  For  example,  the  Council  on  December 
13,  1700,  elected  Dupont  to  succeed  Villeray,  deceased,  in 
the  office  of  First  Councillor.  Dupont  held  office  by  au- 
thority of  this  election  until  1703,  when  the  King  commis- 
sioned Lotbiniere  as  First  Councillor.2  explaining  to  Dupont 
his  satisfaction  with  his  conduct,  but  expressing  the  neces- 
sity of  rewarding  Lotbiniere  for  certain  services.  The 
King  did  not  question  the  title  of  Dupont;  his  action  was 
based  upon  the  ground  of  expediency. 

Qualifications 

Long  service  in  the  King's  business,  some  knowledge  of 
jurisprudence,  and  orthodoxy  in  religious  matters,  were 
qualifications  most  necessary  for  appointment  to  the  Coun- 
cil. Many  of  the  Councillors  had  shown  some  ability  in 
places  of  trust,  in  business  of  a  judicial  or  administrative 
or  commercial  or  military  character.  For  example,  Villeray 
had  been  assistant  judge  of  the  court  of  Quebec,  and  Lot- 
biniere had  been  its  lieutenant  general;  Tesserie  had  been 
president  of  "  I'ancien  conseil  "  in  the  absence  of  Avaugour; 
Monseignat  had  been  controller  of  marine  and  fortifications, 
and  Maze,  captain  of  the  garrison  of  Fort  Saint  Louis. 
The  King  appointed  Reverin  because  he  was  pleased  with 
his  management  of  the  fur  business  and  Sarrazin  because  of 
his  efficiency  as  a  surgeon  and  physician. 

towards  the  close  of  his  third  year  of  service.  For  example,  Cugnet 
the  younger  was  appointed  assesseur  on  October  4,  1754,  and  Councillor 
on  April  24,  1757.  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  114-115. 

1  Macart  commissioned  by  the  Council  to  be  substitute  Attorney- 
General,  November  22,  1706.  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mtry,  series  F,  vol.  ix, 
pt.  i,  p.  68. 

1  lugements  ei  Dtlib.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  513,  902. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

Later,  legal  knowledge  was  seen  to  be  a  desirable  quali- 
fication,1 but  this  requirement  it  was  difficult  to  fulfil.  To  be 
sure,  the  Attorney-General  offered  to  give  lectures  on  law 
to  any  who  chose  to  present  themselves,  while  the  King 
sent  over  law  books,  and  the  Intendant  placed  books  at  the 
disposition  of  the  judges.  Moreover,  only  a  knowledge  of 
the  ordinances  and  the  elements  of  French  law  was  ex- 
pected. But  even  so,  it  was  difficult  to  get  young  men  to 
study  law  without  hope  of  employment.  Accordingly,  in 
order  to  encourage  legal  study,  the  King,  in  1741,  declared 
that  he  would  fill  the  next  vacancy  with  a  person  who  had 
applied  himself  to  jurisprudence,2  and  in  the  next  year  he 
definitely  established  the  office  of  assessor  to  train  men  for 
the  Superior  Council. 

Religious  orthodoxy  in  a  country  where  there  were  but 
few  heretics  was  a  purely  nominal  qualification.  There  is 
no  record  of  exclusion  from  office  on  this  score.  Neverthe- 
less, the  form  of  directing  an  investigation  into  "  the  life, 
manners  and  religion,  Catholic,  Apostolic  and  Roman  ",  of 
the  candidate  was  punctiliously  followed.  The  certificate 
of  a  man's  religious  fitness  was  at  first  obtained  from  the 
Bishop  or  in  his  absence  from  the  Vicar  General.3  Later, 
this  inquiry  was  made  by  the  Attorney-General,  who  was 
bound  to  receive  depositions  from  three  witnesses,  one  of 
whom  must  be  an  ecclesiastic,  and  to  report  to  the  dean 
(doyen)  of  the  Council.4  The  formality  possibly  impressed 

1  Correspondance  Generate,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ivii,  pt.  i,  p.  5- 
J  Minister    to    Beauharnais    April   26,    1741.     Supplement    Canadian 
Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  149. 

3  Thus  in  1674:  "  Certifficat  de  venerable  et  discrette  personne  Mre 
Henry  de  Bernieres  viccaire  general  de  Mre  Frangois  Delaval,  Evesque 
etc.,  de  la  religion   Catholique  apostolique  et  romaine  du  diet  sieur 
D'auteuil."    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  858. 

4  For  example  in   1703:  "il   seroit  Informe  de  la  Req*e  dud.  pro- 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

the  candidate,  but  hardly  worried  him  as  to  his  eventual  re- 
ception into  office. 

Another  nominal  qualification  was  that  a  Councillor 
must  be  twenty-five  years  of  age.  Auteuil  the  younger,  was 
given  a  commission  and  received  into  the  Council  despite 
the  Governor's  objections,  when  he  was  only  twenty-two 
and  he  served  in  the  important  office  of  Attorney- 
General  for  two  years  before  the  letter  dispensing  with 
the  age  qualification  in  his  case  arrived.  It  was  prob- 
ably because  of  the  violent  protests  of  Frontenac  that  less 
laxity  was  afterwards  shown  concerning  the  age  of  candi- 
dates and  the  immediate  necessity  of  letters  of  dispensa- 
tion, since  in  1703,  "aage  competent"  and  "conversation" 
were  added  to  the  other  subjects  to  be  investigated.  In 
1711,  Lotbiniere  was  not  received  into  the  Council  until 
he  had  obtained  letters  of  dispensation  from  the  King.1 

Tenure  of  Office 

During  the  first  decade  of  the  Council's  history,  tenure 
of  office  was  nominally  for  one  year;  in  practice  it  was 
during  good  behavior.  At  the  end  of  their  term  of  one 
year,  Mesy  had  dispensed  with  the  services  of  five  mem- 
bers of  the  Council.  During  the  succeeding  years  Auteuil 
and  Villeray  were  supplanted.  In  1674  and  1675  royal 
commissions  introduced  tenure  during  the  King's  pleasure, 
which  in  practice  meant  tenure  for  life.  While  Frontenac 
and  Beauharnais  suspended  certain  Councillors  from  their 
functions,  they  did  not  dismiss  them  from  office.  They 
might  have  done  so  with  the  royal  consent,  but  lacking  that 
consent  they  were  powerless  to  end  the  term  of  Councillors; 

cureur  general  par  devant  Mre  Nicolas  du  Pont  de  neuville  des  vie, 
moeurs,  aage  competent,  conversation,  religion  catholique  apostolique 
et  Romaine  dud  Sr  Lotbiniere."    Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  905. 
1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  267. 


I33l  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

the  King  alone  could  cancel  a  royal  commission.  Tenure 
for  life  resulted  in  long  periods  of  service.  Damours  and 
Tilly  were  in  office  for  thirty-three  years;  Lotbiniere  for 
thirty-five  years;  Dupont  for  forty-two  years.  Villeray 
ended  his  official  career  as  president  of  the  Council  just  one 
week  before  his  death  in  1700,  having  served  as  First  Coun- 
cillor for  a  period  of  thirty  years,  counting  out  the  seven 
years  that  he  was  excluded  from  the  Council.  Several 
Councillors  of  the  eighteenth  century  could  show  almost 
as  long  records  of  service.  Assistant  Councillors  held  office 
for  three  years  and  might  be  reappointed  for  an  additional 
term  of  three  years.1 

Emoluments 

The  office  of  Councillor  was  not  very  remunerative.  Its 
value  depended  as  much  upon  the  privileges  and  dignity  of 
the  office  as  upon  the  salary  attached  thereto.  Salaries 
were  not  large  in  New  France.  The  Governor  received 
20,000  livres,  from  which  sum  he  was  obliged  to  maintain 
and  pay  the  wages  of  his  company  of  guards.  The  In- 
tendant  received  12,000  livres.  Of  his  obligations  I  am 
ignorant.  Neither  Governor,  Bishop,  nor  Intendant  re- 
ceived additional  sums  for  attendance  at  Council  meetings. 
In  1675  the  personal  stipend  of  the  Governor  amounted  to 
but  3,000  livres.  At  the  same  time  the  First  Councillor  re- 
ceived 500  livres,  the  six  ordinary  Councillors  300  livres 
each,  the  Attorney-General  500  livres,  the  clerk  of  the 
court  as  much,  plus  fees  for  his  assistants,  the  bailiff  100 

1 "  les  commissions . . .  ne  soient  que  pour  trois  annees  a  compter  du 
jour  de  leur  reception  aux  dits  conseils  superieurs,  et  a  1'expiration 
des  dites  trois  annees,  nous  permettons  aux  dits  gouverneurs  et  in- 
tendans  .  .  .  de  donner  de  pareilles  commissions  d'assesseurs  a  d'autres 
sujets,  ou  d'en  accorder  de  nouvelles,  s'ils  jugent  a  propos,  a  ceux 
dont  le  terns  sera  expire."  Article  v,  Letters  Patent  1742,  Edits  et 
Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  562. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

livres,  and  the  executioner  300  livres  and  30  livres  for  his 
lodging.1 

When  the  Council  was  enlarged  in  1703,  the  King  was 
unwilling  to  increase  the  expenses  of  government  by  pro- 
viding salaries  for  the  additional  members.  To  be  sure, 
the  Declaration  of  Augmentation  provided  that  these  new 
members  should  have  all  the  wages  and  emoluments  of 
Councillors  of  the  court  of  the  Parlement  of  Paris,2  but  the 
King  explained  that  the  new  members  should  receive  sal- 
aries only  when  they  succeeded  to  the  old  offices  in  the 
Council  left  vacant  by  death  or  promotion.  Furthermore 
the  representative  of  the  clergy  was  never  to  receive  a  sal- 
ary.3 In  1734,  however,  in  consquence  of  repeated  repre- 
sentations, the  four  lay  Councillors  added  by  the  Declara- 
tion of  Augmentation  were  granted  salaries  of  300  livres.4 

Councillors  were  probably  envious  of  the  prominent  posi- 
tion and  larger  salary  of  the  First  Councillor  for,  after  the 
death  of  Villeray  in  1700,  they  petitioned  the  King  to  abol- 
ish the  office.5  The  King  refused  but  raised  the  salary  of 
the  second  and  third  Councillors  to  450  livres,  while  re- 
ducing that  of  the  First  Councillor  from  500  to  450  livres. 
This  increase  in  salary  was  the  result  of  an  interesting 
letter  written  by  the  Sovereign  Council  in  1702.  After  ask- 
ing to  be  retained  in  office,  they  thus  described  the  salary 
situation :  "  We  have,  Monseigneur,  a  second  favor  to  ask 
of  your  Highness ;  that  is,  that  he  should  increase  our  sal- 

1  Coll  de  Man.  de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  i,  pp.  233-235. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  299-301. 

*  "  Ces  cinq  derniers  n'auront  point  de  gages ;  mais  ils  monteront  a  la 
place  des  autres  qui  viendront  a  vacquer  a  la  reserve  du   Sr  de  la 
Colombiere  qui   sera  tou jours  sans  gages."    Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery, 
series  F  Hi,  vol.  viii,  pt.  Hi,  p.  391. 

4  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1904,  Appendix  K,  p.  199. 

5  Minister    to    Beauharnais    June    20,    1703.     Supplement    Canadian 
Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  106. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

aries,  which  are  so  modest  that  they  reflect  scorn  upon  the 
offices  with  which  we  have  the  honor  to  be  vested.  The  cost 
and  maintenance  of  carriages  necessary  to  convey  us  to  the 
court  house,  the  difficulty  of  traveling  through  the  snows, 
and  other  expenses,  so  eat  into  our  salaries  as  to  leave  us 
nothing.  As  the  country  grows  and  business  increases,  it 
no  longer  comports  with  our  dignity  to  supplement  our  sal- 
aries with  petty  trade.  There  is  not  in  the  country  an  offi- 
cer, however  unimportant,  who  does  not  receive  a  larger 
salary.  M.  the  Governor  and  M.  the  Intendant  are  kind 
enough  to  join  their  prayers  with  ours  in  this  regard."  x 

In  1752  the  King  raised  the  salaries  of  the  first  three 
Councillors  from  450  to  600  livres  and  the  salaries  of  the 
other  Councillors  from  300  to  450  livres.2  These  salaries 
for  the  last  four  Councillors  in  1734  and  increases  in  the 
salaries  of  all  the  Councillors  in  1752  were  obtained  only 
as  a  result  of  repeated  requests  from  Governor,  Intendant, 
and  Councillors. 

For  example,  the  meagerness  of  the  salaries  and  the  need 
of  making  the  office  financially  more  attractive  are  set  forth 
in  a  letter  of  Beauharnais  (Governor)  and  Hocquart  (In- 
tendant), written  under  date  of  October  i,  1732  :  "  We  last 
year  gave  His  Majesty  some  account  of  the  qualifications  of 
the  officers  of  justice  who  compose  the  tribunals  of  this  col- 
ony, and  we  hope  that  after  having  been  informed  of  the 
necessity  which  exists  of  filling  the  Superior  Council  with 
capable  persons,  he  will  be  pleased  to  provide  for  it.  We 
cannot  excuse  ourselves  from  representing  to  him  anew 
the  lack  of  resources  we  have  in  persons  of  any  rank  in 
this  colony  from  which  to  choose  judges,  capable  of  filling 
the  desires  of  His  Majesty  in  the  administration  of  justice. 

1  Carres.  Gen,,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xx,  pt.  i. 

1  Supplement  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  162. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

"  On  account  of  the  meagerness  or  total  lack  of  resources 
that  they  find  in  judicial  employments,  the  majority  of 
those  who  might  have  a  disposition  to  become  adept  in  the 
law,  hold  themselves  aloof,  and  this  is  an  insurmountable 
obstacle  to  finding  suitable  persons  to  fill  the  vacant  places. 
At  present  there  is  not  a  person  except  the  Sieur  Gaillard 
who  has  solicited  a  position  as  Councillor  since  there  have 
been  vacancies.  Of  his  qualification  we  speak  in  another 
despatch. 

"  In  general,  in  a  country  as  poor  as  this,  little  value  is 
set  upon  an  honorary  position  to  which  no  profit  is  attached. 
The  Attorney-General,  the  Sieur  Verrier,  will  gladly  present 
himself  to  give  lessons  in  French  law,  but  he  will  have  no 
listeners  at  all  unless  they  are  flattered  by  the  hope  that  their 
work  will  lead  to  some  profitable  employment.  We  cannot 
leave  His  Majesty  in  ignorance  of  all  these  circumstances." 

In  the  previous  year,  these  officials  had  proposed  that 
two  decrepit  old  Councillors  be  retired  with  honors  and  sal- 
ary and  that  two  young  men  of  family  be  sent  to  Canada 
to  serve  as  Councillors  with  salaries  of  600  livres  each.  It 
was  only  upon  the  King's  refusal  that  they  pushed  the  alter- 
native of  training  young  men  in  Canada  with  a  view  to 
becoming  Councillors.  It  took  ten  years  to  convince  the 
King  that  no  one  would  study  law  without  such  a  prospect. 

In  addition  to  regular  salaries  Councillors  voted  them- 
selves good  pay  for  special  commission  work.  For  ex- 
ample, Damours  was  allowed  a  rate  of  two  sous  for  every 
pound  of  beaver  skin  inspected  by  him.  In  1680  the  rate 
of  a  commissioner  was  raised  from  10  to  15  livres  a  day 
and  that  of  the  clerk  from  7  to  10  livres  a  day.2  Further- 
more, the  King  occasionally  added  small  pensions  to  the 

1  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ivii,  pt.  i,  p.  5,  et  seq. 
*Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  452. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

salaries  of  officials.  In  1676  Tilly  and  Damours  received  a 
double  pension  "  in  consideration  of  their  services  and  of 
the  number  of  their  children,  at  the  rate  of  61  livres  for 
each  child  "-1  In  1700  Auteuil  was  given  a  pension  of  300 
livres,2  and  Lotbiniere  received  the  same  sum. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Councillors  were  generally 
farmers,  taking  recesses  for  the  annual  sowing  and  harvest- 
ing. Probably  they  depended  as  much  upon  the  fruits  of 
the  soil  as  upon  their  salaries.  Sometimes  they  traded,  per- 
haps sold  meat  in  their  houses  as  did  Villeray.3  In  fact  the 
business  of  huckstering  yielded  an  income  for  more  than 
one  Councillor.  Frontenac  said  that  there  was  no  use  in 
establishing  a  market  in  Quebec  when  people  were  scour- 
ing the  country  to  buy  up  cattle.  Auteuil,  feeling  the  shoe 
pinch,  retorted  by  saying  that  he  could  do  as  much  for  his 
family  as  the  chefs  of  the  Governor  and  the  Intendant  did 
for  their  tables.  Auteuil's  enemy  Cadillac  accuses  him  of 
being  the  most  persistent  of  hucksterers.4 

In  the  eighteenth  century  such  small  traffic  gave  way  to 
larger  enterprises.  The  provision  of  the  Edict  of  Establish- 
ment, prohibiting  Councillors  from  enjoying  other  wages, 
etc.,5  which  was  enforced  during  the  seventeenth  century, 

1  Archives  des  Col.,  series  B,  vol.  vii,  pp.  1676-1678. 

2  Minister  to  Auteuil  May  5,  1700.    Ibid.,  vol.  xxii,  pt.  i,  p.  336. 

1  The  King  wrote  La  Barre  in  1684  that  he  was  surprised  to  hear  that 
the  Governor  permitted  Councillors  to  absent  themselves  for  the  pur- 
pose of  trading.  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  268.  Cadillac 
relates  how  Villeray,  the  wealthiest  man  in  the  colony,  turned  his  house 
into  a  butcher's  shop  in  which  his  servant  sold  the  meat  and  his  wife 
collected  the  money.  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xiii,  pt.  i,  pp.  256-257. 

4  "  .  .  .  il  n'y  a  qua  s'informer  s'ily  a  dans  le  pays  un  plus  grand  regratier 
que  luy  s'il  ne  fait  pas  revendre  et  burre  et  viande  et  pain  apres  avoir 
couru  les  costes  pour  1'achapter."  Ibid. 

6  "...  sans  que  les  officiers  du  dit  Conseil  souverain  puissent  exercer 
autres  offices,  avoir  gages  ni  recevoir  presents,  ou  pensions  de  qui  que 
ce  soit  que  ceux  qui  leur  seront  par  nous  ordonnes,  sans  notre  per- 
mission." Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  39- 


138       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

became  a  dead  letter.  In  1685  Martiniere  had  been  ordered 
to  resign  from  the  position  of  Councillor  because  he  had  en- 
tered the  employ  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Trading  Company.1 
Later  he  was  allowed  to  make  his  choice  and  he  preferred 
to  retain  his  seat  in  the  Council.  But  in  the  eighteenth 
century  the  King  felt  the  need  of  making  the  position  of 
Councillor  attractive.  He  listened  favorably  to  Auteuil's 
request  that  the  Governor  grant  hunting  licenses  to  Coun-. 
cillors,2  and  his  minister  approved  of  the  election  of  Coun- 
cillors as  directors  of  the  Company  of  the  Colony  of  Can- 
ada, and  congratulated  Auteuil  upon  his  election  as  man- 
ager.3 In  1733  the  Commissioner  of  Marine  was  admitted 
to  a  seat  in  the  Council.4  In  1738  the  minister  declared 
that  Lotbiniere  should  have  his  revenues  as  canon  in  addi- 
tion to  his  salary  as  Councillor.5  It  is  apparent,  therefore, 
that  a  member  of  the  Council  was  not  limited  to  his  official 
salary. 

The  honors  and  privileges  pertaining  to  the  office  were 
almost  as  desirable  as  the  stipend  attached  to  it.  The  digni- 
fied and  prominent  position  which  Councillors  enjoyed 
called  forth  covert  gibes  from  envious  neighbors  and  ene- 
mies.0 The  exaltation  of  Councillors  was  due  in  part 

1  Decree  of  Council  of  State  March  10,  1685.    Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery, 
series  F  iii,  vol.  vi,  p.  297. 

2  "...  qu'il  leur  f  asse  part  des  avantages  qu'il  accorde  par  les  congez 
d'envoyer  aux  Outuoux,  et  ausquels  cependant  ils  n'ont  peu  pas  par- 
ticiper  jusqu'a  present."    Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  144- 50. 

3  Minister  to   Auteuil   May  31,   1701.    Archives  des  Col.,  series   B, 
vol.  xxii,  pt.  ii,  p.  236. 

4  Supplement  Can.  Arch.  Report  for  1899,  p.  142. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  147. 

•  La  Hontan  tells  us  that  a  Gascon  title  of  Capa  y  de  Spada  was  given 
to  them  because  they  walked  very  gravely  wearing  neither  robe  nor 
sword  but  leaning  upon  canes.  Voyages,  vol.  i,  p.  402. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

to  the  position  assigned  them  in  church  ceremonies.  An 
elaborate  order  of  march  was  developed  during  the  first  half 
century.  In  1716  the  King  determined  its  ultimate  form. 
Thenceforth  processions  were  to  be  headed  by  the  Governor 
and  the  Intendant,  the  latter  on  the  left  of  the  former.  The 
Governor  was  preceded  by  his  guard  and  upon  his  right 
marched  the  Captain  of  the  guard.  In  advance  of  the  In- 
tendant were  the  bailiffs  including  the  first  usher  and  the 
chief  clerk.  Behind  Governor  and  Intendant  marched  the 
Councillors  two  abreast,  led  by  the  First  Councillor  and 
Dean  of  the  Council,  and  followed  by  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral. Third  in  the  procession  came  the  Lieutenant  General 
of  the  provost  court  of  Quebec,  the  royal  attorney  and 
clerk.1 

Inside  the  church,  the  Council  occupied  a  pew  imme- 
diately behind  that  of  the  Governor  and  Intendant,  and  in 
the  same  order  the  pain  benit,  or  eulogiae,  the  pax  (le  paix}, 
the  incense,  the  tapers  (les  cierges),  and  the  palm  branches 
(les  rameaux},  were  presented  to  them  by  the  officiating 
priest,  before  the  church  wardens  themselves.2  Frontenac 
realized  the  value  of  such  ceremonies.  In  1675  he  replied 
to  some  discontented  church  wardens  that  His  Majesty  in- 
tended these  honors  to  be  shown  his  officers  of  justice  in 
order  to  teach  the  people  to  respect  their  persons,  ordinances 
and  judgments,  and  that  there  was  no  more  effective  means 
of  holding  the  people  to  the  service  of  His  Majesty  than 
by  impressing  upon  their  minds  some  respect  for  the  magis- 

1  See  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  352,  article  vi,  supplemented  by  a  descrip- 
tion of  earlier  customs  found  for  example  in  Jugements  et  Delib., 
vol.  v,  pp.  167-168. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  65,  67 ;  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  904. 
Note  the  interesting  reason  advanced :  "  qu'il  n'est  pas  de  sa  dignite 
de  recevoir  de  la  main  d'un  bedeau,  les  rameaux  et  cierges  benits. 
comme  aussi  d'aller  a  1'adoration  de  la  Croix  en  la  maniere  que  faict  le 
commun  peuple."  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  922. 


I4o       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [I4O 

trates.1  For  these  reasons  the  most  honorable  places  in  all 
the  churches  were  on  occasion  reserved  for  the  Councillors. 
They  celebrated  His  Majesty's  victories  in  the  cathedral 
church;  they  sang  Te  Deum  in  Notre  Dame  des  Victoires 
when  in  1711  the  English  fleet  was  wrecked; 2  they  honored 
the  memory  of  Frontenac  in  the  church  of  the  Recollets.3 

Councillors  were  perfectly  ready  to  add  to  the  privileges 
they  enjoyed.  In  1676  they  passed  a  provisional  ordinance 
that  henceforth  the  members  of  the  court,  and  the  widows 
of  those  officers  who  died  while  in  office,  should,  if  litigants, 
plead  in  first  instance  before  one  of  their  number  appointed 
for  the  month.  From  this  individual  Councillor  there  was 
to  be  appeal  to  the  Sovereign  Council.3  The  King,  however, 
considered  that  such  an  arrangement  compromised  impar- 
tial justice  and  in  June,  1679,  ordered  causes  involving 
Councillors  to  be  tried  before  the  lieutenant  general  of  the 
provost  court  of  Quebec.  Appeals  were  to  be  tried  by  the 

1  Frontenac  wished  no  jot  or  title  of  the  ceremonies  of  procession 
to  be  abated.  Formerly  the  government  had  given  to  the  cathedral  a 
stretch  of  land  all  about  the  church  to  be  used  as  a  route  for  grand 
processions.  The  churchwardens  had  enclosed  this  land,  leaving  two 
large  gates  which  were  used  only  to  admit  firewood.  The  Governor 
complained  that  this  was  a  misappropriation  of  the  gift  and  that  the 
accustomed  processions  were  thereby  prevented.  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  009. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  526;  vol.  vi,  p.  246.    After  Sir  William  Phipp's  ex- 
pedition, it  was  called  Notre  Dame  de  la  Victoire.    After  the  second 
English  debac  e  in   1711  the  name  was  changed  to  Notre  Dame  des 
Victoires.    It  is  to-day  the  most  interesting  church  in  Quebec.     Such 
ceremonies  occasionally  palled  upon  the  Councillors.    For  example,  on 
July  17,  1689,  the  King's  victories  were  to  be  glorified  by  the  singing 
of  a  Te  Deum  at  the  cathedral,  to  be  attended  by  the  Council.    Villeray 
and  Martiniere  were  the  only  Councillors  present  at  the  rendezvous. 
After  waiting  more  than  an  hour  and  having  learned  from  a  bailiff 
that  the  service  had  finally  begun,  the  two  faithful  Councillors  retired 
in  disgust.    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  346. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  97. 


I4I] 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 


Intendant  and  six  judges  chosen  by  him.1  In  1781  Tilly 
thought  it  not  in  accordance  with  his  dignity  as  a  Councillor 
to  wait  upon  the  lieutenant  general  to  give  his  testimony  in 
a  case  on  trial  before  that  judge.  The  Council  decreed  that 
when  the  testimony  of  Councillors  was  desired,  the  lieuten- 
ant general  must  wait  upon  his  witnesses  in  the  Council 
chamber.2  Again,  the  Council  sought  to  exempt  its  mem- 
bers from  the  obligation  of  appearing  in  lawsuits  as  wit- 
nesses or  as  defendants.  As  early  as  1663  ushers  were  for- 
bidden to  serve  a  summons  upon  a  Councillor.3 

Honors  and  privileges  added  to  the  prestige  of  Coun- 
cillors. Undue  criticism  detracted  from  it  and  therefore 
was  not  allowed.  Freedom  of  speech  was  not  at  that 
period  an  established  principle  and  no  government  could1 
afford  to  submit  to  criticism.  The  earliest  display  of  disre- 
spect towards  the  Governor,  Intendant,  or  Council,  was 
checked  as  dangerous.  Among  the  nine  or  ten  cases  of  pun- 
ishment for  disrespect  the  following  are  interesting.  In 
1664  the  Council  condemned  Jean  and  Frangois  Pelletier  to 
an  hour's  imprisonment  for  having  retorted  when  under 
trial  that  Councillor  Auteuil  was  guilty  like  themselves  of 
selling  liquor  to  the  Indians.  Later,  it  refused  to  entertain 
the  written  charges  which  they  subsequently  brought.4  In 
1669  the  Council  condemned  Giles  Rageot  to  tear  up  a 
memoir  containing  terms  injurious  to  Councillors  Damours 
and  La  Tesserie,  and  to  beg  their  pardon.5  In  1675  it 
commissioned  Dupont  to  ferret  out  the  authors  of  certain 

1  Declaration  of  the  King  June  1680.    Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol. 
v,  pp.  217-219. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  516. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  68. 
*Ibid.,  vol  i,  p.  115. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  556. 


142        THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [I42 

scandalous  placards,  defamatory  and  insulting  to  the  honor 
of  the  Sovereign  Council,  following  upon  the  banishment 
of  prostitutes  from  Quebec.1  It  commissioned  Tilly  to  in- 
vestigate insolent  and  disrespectful  remarks  made  at  the 
house  of  one  Parent.  Insolence  to  Denonville  by  Genaple, 
pere  and  fits,  was  followed  by  condemnation  of  the  father 
to  ask  pardon  on  his  knees  and  condemnation  of  the  son  to 
two  months'  imprisonment.2  During  Frontenac's  adminis- 
tration a  certain  Madame  Fournier  in  conducting  a  suit  for 
her  husband  addressed  a  petition  to  Frontenac,  a  part  of 
which  was  couched  in  an  unknown  gibberish  in  prose  and 
verse.  The  Governor,  who  plumed  himself  upon  his  wit, 
employed  like  terms  in  his  reply.  Madame  Fournier,  con- 
trary to  the  Governor's  expectations,  used  his  answer  as  a 
document  in  her  suit.  Frontenac  thereupon  handed  over 
her  unusual  petition  to  the  Council  and  asked  that  she  be 
fined  for  irreverence.  The  Council  fined  her  10  livres, 
which  was  applied  by  the  Governor  to  the  needs  of  her  chil- 
dren "  because  of  their  great  necessity  ",  and  the  rejected 
petition  was  returned  to  the  Governor,  "  although,"  af- 
firmed the  Council,  "  it  ought  to  be  torn  up  ". 

The  institution  of  royalty  was  defended  against  criticism. 
In  1671,  Pierre  Dupuy  had  said  among  other  things  that 
there  was  nothing  like  executing  your  own  justice,  that  the 
English  had  done  well  in  killing  their  king.  On  February 
4th  the  Council  condemned  him,  clothed  only  in  his  shirt 
with  a  torch  in  his  hand  and  with  a  rope  around  his  neck, 
to  be  led  by  the  hangman  to  the  great  gate  of  the  Chateau 
St.  Louis,  there  to  ask  pardon  of  the  King.  Thence  the  pro- 
cession was  to  move  to  the  stocks  where  the  delinquent  was 
to  be  branded  with  a  fleur-de-lis  upon  the  cheek. * 

ijugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  9/8,  985. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  24. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  644. 


I43]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

Great  Officials 

The  peculiar  organization  of  the  Sovereign  Council  did 
not  foster  uninterrupted  application  to  business.  We  have 
seen  disputes  of  a  fundamental  character  interrupt  business 
during  the  court  terms  of  1664,  1 680-81,  and  1728.  When 
the  few  months  during  which  the  Council  was  thus  incom- 
moded are  compared,  however,  with  the  century  during 
which  it  administered  justice,  one  is  inclined  to  deprecate 
its  critics  1  and  admire  its  operation. .  Nevertheless  there 
were  faults  in  its  organization — notable  faults  that  experi- 
ence partially  repaired.  The  very  composition  of  the  Coun- 
cil was  vicious.  To  give  three  co-ordinate  officials  such  as 
the  Governor  General,  the  Bishop  and  the  Intendant,  seats 
and  large  powers  in  a  court  of  justice  and  administration 
was  to  court  dissension.  They  represented  different  classes 
with  different  interests — classes  that  were  without  clear 
distinctive  marks  and  that  freely  intermingled,  but,  never- 
theless, representing  broadly  the  noblesse  who  sought  the 
army  and  more  dignified  offices,  the  ecclesiastics  and  the 
most  pious  of  their  followers,  and  the  merchant  class,  the 
most  enterprising  class  in  Canada.  Of  course  a  noble  might 
be  very  devout  and,  therefore,  an  upholder  of  the  clergy; 
or  he  might  enter  upon  a  business  career,  the  King  having 
opened  trade  to  the  noblesse  in  Canada.  Moreover,  success- 
ful business  men  in  the  colony  obtained  letters  of  nobility: 
the  Tillys,  the  Damours,  the  Duponts,  the  Villerays,  and 
many  others  bestrode  trade  and  a  title.  Persistent  rumor 

1  In  La  Hontan's  account  of  the  government  of  Canada  that  author 
writes :  "  But  the  most  important  alteration  would  consist  in  keeping 
the  Governor,  the  Intendant,  the  Sovereign  Council,  the  Bishops  and 
the  Jesuits  from  splitting  into  factions,  and  intriguing  one  against 
the  other;  for  the  consequence  of  such  Divisions  can  not  but  thwart 
His  Majesty's  Service  and  the  Peace  of  the  Publick."  Voyages, 
Thwaites'  edition,  vol.  i,  p.  268. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [144 

had  it  that  the  Jesuits  traded  with  the  Indians,  and  such 
business  men  as  Auteuil  the  elder  were  undoubtedly  under 
ecclesiastical  influence.  Therefore  there  was  no  hard  and 
fast  line  between  these  classes,  and  groups  from  each  of 
them  might  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  Governor,  the 
Bishop,  and  the  Intendant,  respectively,  whenever  disputes 
arose. 

The  Governor 

These  officials  might  have  worked  well  together  from 
the  start  had  the  King  clearly  defined  their  functions  and 
position  in  the  Council.  Even  on  the  points  where  he  was 
clear  he  delegated  overlapping  powers  to  his  officials.  The 
first  instance  of  definition  of  power  occurred  in  1663.  It 
concerned  the  appointment  of  Councillors  and  was  pro- 
longed in  a  mild  way  until  1675.  The  Governor  was  given 
the  power  jointly  with  the  Bishop  to  remove  and  appoint 
Councillors.  His  commission  however  provided  that  he 
should  have  supreme  power  over  the  officers  of  the  Sov- 
ereign Council.1  When  therefore  the  Bishop  refused  to  co- 
operate with  him  to  replace  objectionable  members  at  the 
end  of  their  term  of  office,  Governor  Mesy  violated  the 
Edict  of  Establishment,  relying  upon  the  broader  powers 
designated  to  him  in  his  commission.  The  Bishop's  friends 
had  control  in  the  Council  and  by  refusing  to  make  "  joint 
action "  possible,  Laval  planned  to  retain  that  majority 
until  Mesy  was  replaced. 

As  we  have  seen  this  question  was  by  no  means  settled  by 
the  advent  of  the  West  Indies  Company  administration. 
The  Edict  of  Establishment  was  not  abrogated.  The  Coun- 
cil retained  the  organization  authorized  by  this  Edict  and 

1 "  Nous  donnons  plein  pouvoir,  puissance,  autorite,  commission,  et 
mandement  special  de  commander  dorenavant  ...  a  tous  nos  offi- 
ciers,  ministres  et  sujets  d'icelui."  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  iii,  p.  21. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

functioned  as  before.  The  Bishop  was  theoretically  able  to 
participate  in  making  nominations,  but  the  general  agent 
succeeded  in  formulating  a  process  of  nomination  that  ex- 
cluded the  Bishop;  Governor  and  Intendant  were  to  grant 
commissions  to  nominees  of  the  Company.  But  Governor 
Frontenac,  depending  upon  the  broad  powers  of  his  com- 
mission, assumed  the  sole  right  of  both  appointment  and 
commission.1  Both  Edict  and  agreement  with  the  Company 
were  thus  superseded  by  a  third  method,  based  solely  upon 
the  Governor's  commission.  This  indefiniteness  was  rem- 
edied in  1675  by  the  provision  that  the  King  should  fill 
vacancies  in  the  Council.2 

The  same  overlapping  of  powers  was  responsible  also  for 
the  dispute  concerning  the  title  of  president  of  the  Council. 
The  commission  of  the  Intendant  provided  that  he  should 
preside  only  in  the  absence  of  the  Governor.5  The  Declara- 
tion of  1675  stipulated  that  although  he  should  be  third  in 
point  of  dignity,  the  Intendant  should  serve  as  president  of 
the  Council.4  The  long  and  dreary  dispute  that  arose  from 
these  contradictory  provisions  was  terminated  only  in  1680 
with  the  royal  regulation  that  neither  Governor  nor  In- 
tendant should  have  the  title  of  president  but  that  the  In- 
tendant should  perform  all  the  functions  of  president.5  In 
1 68 1  the  privilege  of  presiding  in  the  Intendant's  absence, 

1  Frontenac's  commission  provides  that  he  is  to  "  avoir  commande- 
ment  sur  tous  les  officiers  du  Conseil  souverain."  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  40. 

1  "  auxquelles  charges,  vacation  avenant,  nous  pourvoirons  a  1'avenir 
de  plein  droit."  Declaration  of  1675,  ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  84.  Confirmed 
in  1703,  ibid.,  p.  300. 

1 "  presider  au  Conseil  souverain  en  1'absence  du  dit  sieur  de 
Frontenac."  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  42. 

* "  1'intendant  .  .  .  lequel  dans  1'order  ci-dessus  aura  la  troisieme 
place  comme  president  du  dit  conseil  demande  les  avis,  recueille  les 
voix,"  etc.  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  84. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  238. 


I46       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [I46 

even  though  the  Governor  was  present,  was  secured  to  the 
dean  of  the  Council,  who  was  usually  the  First  Councillor. 

However,  even  without  the  power  to  fill  vacancies  in  the 
Council,  to  address  the  assembly,  to  administer  the  oath  of 
office  annually  to  the  Councillors,  or  to  preside  either  as 
actual  or  honorary  president,  the  Governor  was  the  most 
powerful  member  of  the  Sovereign  Council.  He  controlled 
the  military  forces  and  the  terms  of  his  commission  might 
warrant  using  soldiers  to  carry  out  his  wishes  in  the  Coun- 
cil. The  clause  "  avoir  commandement  sur  les  officiers  du 
Conseil  souverain  " ,  was  the  authority  of  Frontenac,  when 
in  1694  he  delivered  Mareuil  from  prison  by  force;  when  in 
1679  he  banished  several  members  of  the  Council  from  Que- 
bec; when  he  forced  the  Councillors  to  continue  a  session 
until  the  noon  bell  sounded  although  not  a  word  was  ut- 
tered ;  when  he  stood  before  the  door  of  the  Council  cham- 
ber barring  egress  to  Councillors  and  Intendant  until  the 
latter  had  promised  to  sign  the  minutes  in  his  office.  It 
was  this  same  power  that  Beauharnais  employed  in  1728  to 
suspend  the  execution  of  the  Council's  decrees,  to  forbid 
further  proceedings  against  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral, 
and,  later,  to  banish  two  of  the  Councillors  from  Quebec. 
In  all  these  cases  the  power  was  successfully  exercised.  We 
may  conclude  therefore  that  if  the  Governor  thought  him- 
self justified  in  making  use  of  his  supreme  authority,  no 
one  in  the  Council  could  resist  him. 

He  was  the  most  powerful  of  the  members  of  the  Coun- 
cil, but  only  when  he  adopted  arbitrary  methods.  Upon 
ordinary  occasions  after  1679-81  he  was  no  more  powerful 
than  the  most  prominent  of  the  Councillors,  except  that  he 
was  supposed  to  be  consulted  by  the  Intendant  as  to  the 
advisability  of  calling  special  sessions.1  In  fact,  in  1679, 

1  This   is   the   position   of    Frontenac,    but   he    failed   to   sustain   it. 
fugements  et  Detib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  293. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

the  Intendant  maintained  in  the  Council  chamber,  that  the 
Governor  was  only  an  honorary  member,  as  was  the  Bishop 
or  his  substitute,  the  Grand  Vicar.1  and  that  their  only  pre- 
rogatives were  to  sit  above  him  at  the  Council  board.  In 
theory  this  was  true,  but  in  practice  the  Governor  voted,  he 
expressed  his  opinion,  and  that  opinion  had  great  weight 
in  Council  deliberations.  Moreover  Councillors  who  had 
relatives  that  aspired  to  conciliar  appointment,  could  not 
forget  that  the  Governor  enjoyed  great  influence  with  the 
King.  Still  the  period  of  the  Governor's  greatest  influence 
in  the  Sovereign  Council  was  in  1674,  while  he  exercised 
the  appointing  function,  presided  over  the  sessions,  made 
his  annual  speeches  to  Councillors  and  administered  each 
year  the  oath  of  office.2  What  power  the  Governor  later 
lost  was  resumed  by  the  King,  who  made  the  appointments ; 
or  was  exercised  by  the  Intendant  or  First  Councillor;  or 
passed  away  as  an  outworn  or  objectionable  custom.3 

1  Frontenac  said  that  the  Intendant  "  luy  a  dit  en  particulier  et 
en  plein  Conseil  qu'il  n'y  estoit  que  Conseiller  honoraire  et  n'y  avoit 
d'autres  prerogatives  que  celles  d'estre  assis  au  dessus  de  luy  Inten- 
dant, comme  Monsieur  Levesque,  et  en  son  absence  son  grand  vic- 
caire."  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  292. 

1  The  oath  may  be  of  some  interest.  Councillors  raised  their  right 
hands  and  swore :  "  et  promis  a  Dieu  chacun  a  son  esgard,  de  bien 
et  fidellement  servir  le  Roy  dans  la  fonction  de  leur  charges,  sous 
1'authorite  de  celle  qu'il  a  plu  a  Sa  Majeste  luy  donner  dans  ces  pro- 
vinces Et  de  rendre  la  justice  a  tous  esgalement,  sans  distinction  niy 
acceptation  de  personnes,  conformement  aux  ordonnances  Royaux 
avec  toute  1'integrite  de  Juges  incorruptibles,  Et  la  celerite  que  de- 
mande  le  bien  des  peuples,  comme  aussi  s'il  venoit  quelque  chose  a 
leur  cognoissance  centre  le  service  de  Sa  Majeste,  d'en  advertir  aussi- 
tost  le  diet  Seigneur  Gouverneur,  Et  s'il  n'y  estoit  par  luy  remedi6 
d'en  donner  advis  a  Sa  dicte  Majeste."  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  709. 
3  Thus  the  escort  of  honor,  consisting  of  two  Councillors  sent  each 
day  to  meet  the  Governor  at  the  head  of  the  staircase  in  the  Palais 
de  Justice,  was  abolished  after  the  death  of  Frontenac  in  1699.  The 
annual  speech  was  discontinued  with  the  abolition  in  1675  of  the 
one-year  term  of  office. 


148       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I4g 

The  Intendant 

It  has  been  increasingly  evident  that  the  Intendant  was 
acquiring  a  position  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  Coun- 
cil. Of  the  three  great  officials  he  was  most  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  Councillors,  and  in  that  position  might  seek 
like  Duchesneau  and  Dupuy  to  exalt  the  Council  or  like 
Begon  to  abase  it.  In  any  case  his  opportunities  to  influ- 
ence its  proceedings  were  many. 

Until  1675,  ms  title  to  a  seat  rested  upon  no  edict  but 
only  upon  his  commission  and  instructions.  The  Royal 
Declaration  of  1675  empowered  him  to  act  as  president  of 
the  Council,  to  take  the  opinions,  to  collect  the  votes,  to 
pronounce  the  decrees  and  to  enjoy  the  same  advantages  as 
the  first  president  of  the  King's  courts.1  His  position  was 
further  strengthened  in  1680  when  the  Governor  was  for- 
bidden to  take  the  title  of  chief  and  president  of  the  Coun- 
cil.2 As  president  he  decided  when  special  sessions  were  to 
be  called,  often  without  consultation  with  the  Governor,  and 
he  despatched  bailiffs  to  summon  the  Councillors.  He  de- 
termined a  quorum  and  deputed  the  clerk  or  a  special  com- 
mittee to  invite  the  Governor  to  be  present.  During  the 
meeting  he  served  as  president  and  at  the  close  he  signed 
the  minutes.  He  might  easily  use  his  position  as  president 
to  introduce  or  suppress  the  consideration  of  business.  For 
example,  in  1727,  the  Attorney-General  complained  that  he 
had  presented  three  requisitions  to  the  Council  which  had 
never  been  considered  because  the  Intendant  had  put  them 
into  his  pocket.3  He  might  use  the  office  of  "  reporter  "  so 
often  assigned  him  to  give  what  color  he  chose  to  the  cases 
he  investigated. 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  84. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  238. 

'Beauharnais  to  the   Minister   April  24,   1727.    Carres.  Gen.,  series 
C  xi,  vol.  xlix. 


I49]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

By  virtue  of  his  instructions  he  obtained  the  appointing 
power  in  conjunction  with  other  officials.1  In  the  case  of 
Auteuil  the  younger,  he  filled  out  a  commission  without  con- 
sulting the  Governor.  Although  the  King  assumed  the  ap- 
pointing function  in  1675,  tne  Intendant  was  compensated 
for  a  time  by  permission  to  name  several  lesser  officers  of 
justice.2  Although  subsequently  deprived  of  this  right, 
which  properly  belonged  to  the  Council,  the  Intendant,  ac- 
cording to  Auteuil,  usurped  the  nomination  of  judges,  royal 
attorneys,  clerks,  notaries,  and  bailiffs.3  Thenceforth  his 
influence  over  Councillors  was  largely  due  to  a  desire  on 
their  part  to  win  a  favorable  report  or  recommendation  in 
his  letters  to  the  King. 

For  a  few  years  he  possessed  the  legal  right  to  determine 
in  what  jurisdiction  cases  of  first  instance  were  to  be  tried. 
He  thus  received  all  petitions  and  distributed  them  at  his 
discretion.4  Although  this  function  was  ostensibly  taken 
away  in  1671  by  Colbert,  there  is  much  evidence  that  the 
Intendant  continued  to  exercise  it.  For  example,  in  1684, 
Auteuil  complained  that  Meulles  took  cognizance  of  all 
cases  by  sending  his  secretary  to  summon  the  litigants, 
whereupon  he  judged  them  orally,  making  use  of  prisons 

1  Instructions  of  Talon :  "  suivant  le  pouvoir  que  lui  est  donne  et  au 
dit  Sieur  de  Tracy  et  de  Coucelles,  ils  auront  ou  licencie  le  Conseil 
Souverain  pour  le  composer  d'autres  personnes,  en  cas  qu'ils  aient 
remarque  qu'ils  n'aient  pas  fait  leur  devoir,  ou  se  seroit  contentes 
d'en  oter  quelquesuns,  ou  enfin  les  auront  confirmes,  si  effectivement  ils 
auront  reconnu  qu'ils  ont  de  bonnes  intentions."  Lettres,  Instructions, 
et  Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  389,  et  seq. 

*  On  May  29,  1680,  the  King  empowered  Duchesneau  to  appoint  the 
usher  of  the  Council  and  clerk  of  the  Marechaussee.  But  other  In- 
tendants  did  not  possess  this  power.  Supplement  Canadian  Archives 
Report  for  1899,  p.  129. 

8  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xxii,  pt.  i,  pp.  363,  et  seq. 
4  January  16,  1668.    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  469. 


I50       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

and  fines  to  execute  his  judgments;  that  he  was  thus  depriv- 
ing the  local  judge  of  Quebec  of  all  business,  and  was  re- 
ducing him  to  a  life  of  laziness.  About  forty  years  later, 
the  same  activity  of  the  Intendant  brought  forth  an  opinion 
of  the  Attorney-General  that  the  Intendant  could  not  judge 
a  case  alone  nor  evoke  to  his  jurisdiction  causes,  except 
those  at  Montreal,  because  at  Quebec,  when  there  were 
causes  to  be  tried,  he  had  only  to  summon  the  Council  in 
extraordinary  session.1  Thus  it  appears  that  accordingly 
as  the  Intendant  was  pleased  or  displeased  with  the  Coun- 
cil, he  gave  or  withheld  judicial  business.  He  possessed  a 
further  hold  over  Councillors  in  that  he  judged  with  six 
of  his  nominees  causes  involving  them. 

In  administrative  business,  Intendant  and  Councillors 
were  intimately  associated,  for  the  great  fundamental  or- 
dinances that  governed  New  France  were  for  the  most 
part  made  by  them  jointly.2 

In  brief,  a  vigorous,  industrious  Intendant  occupied  a 
constitutional  position  of  great  strength  in  the  Council. 
Upon  ordinary  occasions,  he  was  the  most  powerful  of  its 
members ;  but  upon  extraordinary-  occasions  where  the  Gov- 
ernor chose  to  "  avoir  commandement  sur  les  officiers  du 
Conseil  souverain  ",  he  was  no  match  for  that  official.  That 
occasions  of  this  kind  were  few,  was  fortunate  for  the 
routine  work  of  the  court.  That  Councillors  obtained  com- 

1  Beauharnais  to  the  Minister  April  24,  1727.  Carres.  Gen.,  series 
C  xi,  pt.  i,  vol.  xlvii. 

*  The  way  in  which  the  Governor  was  dropped  from  participation 
in  making  police  ordinances  is  shown  by  the  following  documents : 
Talon's  Instructions  provide :  "  il  pourra  par  la  participation  du  Gou- 
verneur  et  du  Conseil  Souverain  en  dresser  un  reglement,"  but  the 
commissions  of  later  Intendants  provide  that  they  "  faire  avec  le  dit 
Conseil  Souverain  les  reglemens  que  vous  estimerez  necessaires  pour 
la  police  generate  du  dits  pays."  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  5.  I[O- 
25,  3i,  48. 


!  5  !  ]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZA  TION 

missions  from  the  King  and  that  the  Intendant  became  the 
undisputed  president  of  the  Council  made  for  the  inde- 
pendence and  effectiveness  of  that  assembly.  As  a  member 
of  the  gens  de  robe,  trained  in  the  French  courts,  the  In- 
tendant was  specially  fitted  to  participate  widely  in  the 
labors  of  the  highest  court. 

The  Bishop 

The  constitutional  position  of  the  Bishop  was  inferior  to 
that  either  of  the  Intendant  or  of  the  Governor.  From  the 
status  of  a  creator  of  Councillors  he  became  only  an  hon- 
orary member.  His  power  in  cooperation  with  the  Gover- 
nor to  continue  Councillors  in  office,  to  remove  and  replace 
them — a  power  provided  by  the  Edict  of  Establishment — 
was  enjoyed  only  in  the  selection  of  the  first  Councillors. 
His  right  to  be  represented  by  an  ecclesiastic  was  abolished 
in  1703  when  a  clerical  Councillor  was  appointed  to  be  the 
permanent  representative  of  clerical  interests.  His  right  to 
sign  the  minutes  was  not  exercised  after  I668,1  and,  in  fact, 
lapsed  when  that  act  of  responsibility  was  made  one  of  the 
Intendant's  duties  in  1675.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he 
ever  voted  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Council,  nor  is  his 
opinion  ever  spread  upon  the  minutes  like  those  of  Gover- 
nor, Intendant,  and  Councillors.2  He  was  in  fact  an  hon- 
orary member,  whose  chief  prerogative  was  to  sit  at  the 
head  of  the  Council  board. 

Honors  certainly  were  shown  him.  In  1685,  a  deputa- 
tion of  Councillors  escorted  Bishop  St.  Vallier  into  the 

1  November  3,  1668.    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  528. 

*  In  March  1664  he  protested  in  writing  that  his  signature  to  acts  of 
the  deputy  Attorney-General  who  had  been  placed  in  Bourdon's  place 
should  by  no  means  prejudice  the  claims  of  Bourdon.  Ibid.,  vol.  i, 
129.  This  was,  however,  not  an  opinion,  in  the  sense  of  a  reason  for 
a  vote  or  proposition. 


I52       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Council  chamber.     In  1688,  another  deputation  was  dele- 
gated to  congratulate  him  upon  his  return  from  France.1 

The  influence  of  the  Bishop  was  not  exerted  upon  Coun- 
cillors in  the  Council  chamber.  He  seldom  participated  in 
the  disputes  of  the  Council.  In  those  exciting  scenes  others 
carried  the  episcopal  banner.  In  1664  it  was  Father  Char- 
ney  who  led  in  opposition  to  Governor  Mesy  and  it  was 
Villeray  and  Auteuil,  notoriously  under  clerical  influence, 
who  aided  and  abetted  this  priest.  It  was  Duchesneau  and 
Auteuil  the  younger,  men  chidden  by  the  King  for  partiality 
towards  the  Bishop,2  who  showed  some  clerical  influence 
in  the  measures  they  proposed  to  the  Council  in  1680-81. 
For  example,  it  was  the  Bishop's  idea  that  the  coureurs  de 
bois  should  be  vigorously  dealt  with.  Frontenac  favored 
milder  measures.  The  Council  adopted  the  policy  of  the 
former.  During  the  prosecution  of  Mareuil.in  1694,  con- 
stant communication  was  maintained  between  Auteuil  and 
Villeray  and  Bishop  St.  Vallier.  They  three  were  jointly 
responsible  for  the  methods  of  delay,  bribery,  and  intimi- 
dation by  close  imprisonment,  which  were  designed  to  cover 
over  the  faux  pas  of  the  Bishop.  Like  a  modern  general 
the  Bishop  could  on  occasion  direct  the  course  of  his  forces 
from  his  bureau.  The  routine  work  of  the  court  did  not 
concern  him  and  matters  of  interest  could  be  watched  over 
by  his  friends  in  the  Council.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
attendance  of  both  Bishop  Laval  and  his  successor  dropped 
off  after  a  few  years.  Nevertheless  the  former  began  to 
attend  the  Council  again,  when  the  friendly  Duchesneau 
came  to  Canada  in  1675.  Apparently  he  took  such  a  promi- 
nent part  in  Council  proceedings  that  the  minister  became 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  1012;  vol.  iii,  p.  242. 

'Minister  to  Duchesneau  May  15,  1678.    Supplement  Can.  Archives 
for  1899,  p.  262. 


153]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

alarmed.  On  May  i,  1677,  he  wrote  to  Duchesneau  that 
as  the  Bishop  was  evidently  assuming  too  independent  an 
authority,  it  would  perhaps  be  wise  that  he  should  not  have 
a  seat  in  the  Council;  that  the  Intendant  must  seek  every 
opportunity,  and  on  all  occasions  take  every  means  prac- 
ticable, to  wean  him  from  the  craving  for  attending  the 
Council.  He  must  however  act  in  this  matter  with  great 
discretion,  taking  care  that  what  the  minister  wrote  be  not 
divulged.1 

The  fact  that  Councillors  would  not  pass  judgment  and 
punish  the  offenders  in  the  Rolland,  Callieres,  Mareuil,  and 
Gosselin  cases,  proves  that  they  shared  the  minister's  dis- 
like to  appear  as  the  Bishop's  critics.  They  sent  the  papers 
of  these  suits  to  the  King,  glad  to  transfer  to  him  the  re- 
sponsibility of  a  decision.  La  Motte  Cadillac,  however, 
stung  by  conciliar  action  beyond  the  bounds  of  caution,  de- 
clared that  since  the  foundation  of  the  colony  it  had  never 
been  possible  to  secure  a  decree  against  a  single  ecclesiastic, 
but  that  on  the  contrary  the  Council  had  aided  the  eccle- 
siastical power  in  oppressing  the  people.2 

But  although  the  Council  never  had  the  courage  to  array 
itself  against  the  Bishop,  it  occasionally  dealt  fearlessly 
with  subordinate  ecclesiastics,  in  spite  of  Cadillac's  asser- 
tion. When  Rolland  sought  justice  against  his  priest,  the 
latter  had  had  a  petition  testifying  to  the  bad  character  of 
the  trader  passed  about  in  the  church  among  the  faithful. 
The  Council  decreed  the  abolition  of  such  practices.3  In 
1705  two  parish  priests  attempted  to  make  produce,  cattle, 
etc.,  tithable.  The  tithe  was  one  twenty-sixth  of  the  grain 

1  Minister  to  Duchesneau,  op.  cit.,  p.  70. 

*  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xiii,  pt.  i,  p.  255. 

8  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  132-33- 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [154 

alone  and  the  Council  forbade  parish  priests  to  make  any 
innovation.1 

In  1677  the  Council  temporarily  deprived  church  wardens 
of  all  honors  because  they  had  contravened  the  regulations 
for  precedence  in  church.2  In  1713,  the  Council  declared 
that  the  Vicar  General  had  judged  a  case  ill  and  sent  the 
petition  before  the  ecclesiastical  judge  of  the  Officially  of 
Quebec,3  and  in  the  next  year,  it  instructed  the  Bishop  to 
appoint  another  official  or  judge  and  another  promoter  or 
attorney,  for  a  certain  trial,  because  the  former  had  been 
challenged  and  the  latter  had  contravened  the  ordinance  of 
1667.*  Later,  it  several  times  reversed  the  decisions  of  the 
ecclesiastical  court.  These  examples  simply  illustrate  that 
the  Council  was  able  and  for  the  most  part  willing  to  ad- 
minister justice  whether  the  offence  was  committed  by  cler- 
ical or  lay  brethren.  The  hesitation  therefore  and  the  re- 
fusal to  judge  cases  involving  the  Bishop  serves  to  illus- 
trate the  strength  of  his  position  in  the  Council. 

The  First  Councillor 

Upon  ordinary  occasions  the  First  Councillor  and  the 
Attorney  General  shared  the  most  prominent  positions  in 
the  Council.  The  office  of  First  Councillor  became  the  re- 
ward of  long  service.  Its  possessor  was  usually  the  dean 
or  eldest  member  of  the  Council.  As  such  he  presided  in 
the  absence  of  the  Intendant ;  he  investigated  into  the  habits, 
religion  and  age  of  prospective  Councillors;  he  conducted 
the  preliminary  investigations  of  many  cases,  thereby  serv- 
ing as  reporter  (rapporteur)  to  the  Council. 

^Jugements  et  De'ib.,  vol.  v,  pp.  184-186. 

'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  166. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  665. 

4  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol  ii,  p.  165. 


155]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZA  TION  1 5 5 

The  Attorney-General 

The  Attorney-General  combined  a  knowledge  of  past  or- 
dinances and  decrees  of  the  Council  and  the  laws  and  ordi- 
nances of  France  with  considerable  political  discretion. 
Upon  every  important  step  in  a  trial,  he  was  consulted.  He 
stated  the  conditions  of  the  case  with  the  laws  that  bore 
upon  it.  His  discretionary  power  lay  in  his  interpreta- 
tion of  those  laws  as  regards  the  case  {conclusion^  and  in 
the  course  which  he  proposed  as  the  legal  remedy  (requisi- 
toire).1  The  Council  usually  acted  in  conformity  with  his 
proposals.  Thus  his  power  of  steering  its  policy  was  tre- 
mendous. His  obstructive  ability  was  just  as  great  as  his 
constructive.  If  a  proposed  measure  were  obnoxious  to 
him  or  his  friends,  he  would  demand  the  submittal  of  the 
written  proposition  for  his  conclusions,  and  could  then 
easily  delay  his  report  upon  it  for  an  indefinite  period. 
Sending  a  paper  to  a  hostile  Attorney-General  usually 
meant  tabling  the  matter  indefinitely.  The  Attorney-Gen- 
eral introduced  a  great  deal  of  business  into  the  Council. 
It  was  upon  his  representation  that  relieving  ordinances 
were  made  and  that  suits  were  prosecuted.  He  supervised 
the  royal  attorneys  of  the  local  courts,  who  met  him  at 
first  on  Saturday  mornings  in  his  house,  and  later  in  the 
antechamber  of  the  Council.  Lastly,  he  was  responsible 
for  the  promulgation  of  royal  and  conciliar  measures. 

The  strengthening  of  these  offices  depended  upon  the  tact 

1  in  1679,  for  example,  the  Attorney-General  after  summing  up  the 
documentary  authorities  concerning  the  Governor's  right  to  the  title 
of  president,  decides  that  the  despatches  which  are  the  basis  of  the 
Governor's  claim  are  not  so  authentic  as  the  Declaration  of  1675, 
which  speaks  of  the  Intendant  as  president.  His  view  was  accepted 
by  the  Council.  Another  typical  case  of  this  use  of  political  dis- 
cretion was  in  1681,  when  the  Attorney-General  decided  that  the 
Governor  could  not  ask  for  written  opinions  of  Councillors.  Juge- 
mcnts  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  313-317. 


!56       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [^6 

and  energy  of  the  occupants.  Villeray,  twice  banished 
from  Quebec,  nevertheless  raised  the  office  of  First  Coun- 
cillor to  its  highest  point.  During  his  life  the  presidency 
of  the  Council  was  secured  to  the  dean  in  the  absence  of 
the  Intendant.  Following  him  Lotbiniere  was  said  to  domi- 
nate Governor  de  Vaudreuil.1  In  spite  of  the  vigorous  at- 
tempt of  Martiniere  in  1714  to  prevent  decadence  in  the 
position  of  the  Council  by  enacting  relieving  ordinances  and 
seeing  that  they  were  enforced,  we  have  seen  that  his  ef- 
forts failed.  Delino  and  Cugnet  were  both  good  men  for 
the  office. 

Bourbon  rather  set  the  pace  for  succeeding  Attorneys- 
General.  He  had  assumed  an  attitude  of  independence 
towards  Mesy.  Upon  receiving  his  dismissal  at  the  end  of 
the  year  1664,  instead  of  accepting  it  philosophically  with 
the  others,  he  declared  defiantly  that  he  did  not  consider 
himself  dispossessed  of  his  office,  whereupon  he  was  chas- 
tised and  sent  over  to  France.  Auteuil  the  elder  endan- 
gered the  prestige  of  his  office  in  1675  on  behalf  of  his 
friends  the  ecclesiastics.  In  the  case  of  Father  Morel,  who 
refused  to  be  tried  by  the  Council  and  sought  to  be  tried 
in  the  ecclesiastical  court  of  Quebec,  Auteuil  agreed  with 
the  priest's  reasons  and  those  of  the  Grand  Vicar.  On  June 
10,  1675,  the  Council  disregarded  his  conclusions,  and 
when  he  persisted,  it  bestowed  a  stinging  rebuke  upon  him, 
claiming  that  he  was  acting  in  league  with  the  ecclesiastics 
and  not  in  the  service  of  the  King.2  Later,  however,  he 

1  Minister  to  Lotbiniere  June  9,  1706,  supplement  Con.  Archives  Report 
for  1899,  p.  392. 

2  " . . .  il  a  paru  qu'il  ne  s'acquittoit  pas  du  devoir  de  sa  charge,  Et 
atendu  1'uniformite  qui  paroist  Entre  ses  conclusions  Et  les  reponses 
des  Ecclesiastiques,  qu'il  soit  adverty  par  le  Conseil  qu'a  1'advenir  II 
aye  a  considerer  de  plus  prez  ce  qui  regarde  le  service  du   Roy  Et 
1'autorite   du   Conseil   pour   le   soutien   de   ses   arrets."    Jugements  et 
Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  940. 


I57]  MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

regained  the  favor  of  the  majority  in  the  Council,  stood 
against  its  intimidation  by  the  Governor,  and  was  one  of 
those  banished  from  Quebec  in  1679.  In  fact,  the  Intend- 
ant  painted  Auteuil  as  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of  consiliar  in- 
dependence, claiming  that  he  died  because  of  the  exposure 
to  the  weather  and  excitement  caused  by  his  banishment.1 

Auteuil  the  younger  entered  the  Council  under  the  aus- 
pices of  Duchesneau.  In  the  exciting  scenes  of  the  next 
two  years  (1679-81),  he  played  a  role  second  only  to  the 
Governor  and  Intendant.  He,  like  his  father,  was  alert 
against  enterprises  directed  as  he  thought  at  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Council,  but  only  if  they  emanated  from  the 
Governor.  He  was  however  content  to  be  the  right  hand 
of  Duchesneau,  because  he  thought  that  the  Intendant  was 
aiming  at  conciliar  independence.  Throughout  the  great 
cases  of  1694  he  was  under  the  influence  of  Bishop  St.  Val- 
lier,  but  later  became  more  independent/  In  1706  he  frus- 
trated the  designs  of  the  parish  priests  in  the  matter  of 
the  tithes.  The  dispute  turned  in  great  measure  upon  the 
regulation,  real  or  alleged,  of  August  23,  1667,  on  which 
Fathers  Boullard  and  Fournel  relied.  The  Attorney-Gen- 
eral replied  that  the  regulation  upon  this  matter  was  of 
date  September  4,  1667,  that  the  letter  was  duly  signed,  exe- 
cuted and  registered  in  the  office  of  the  recorder  of  the 
Council,  whereas  the  other  was  unknown  until  that  day, 
and  being  neither  registered  nor  published,  could  be  noth- 
ing more  than  the  draft  of  a  regulation.2  Auteuil's  view 
was  sustained  by  the  decision  of  the  King.  Later,  in  the 
month  of  January,  Auteuil  was  found  to  have  assisted 
Madame  de  la  Forest  in  her  attempt  to  prevent  the  trial  of 
her  suit  before  the  Superior  Council.  Furthermore,  he 

*Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  342. 

1  Supplement  Can.  Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  198. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [I58 

charged  the  Intendant  at  this  time  with  maltreating  the 
Council.  The  rebuke  which  followed  indicated  his  loss  of 
influence  in  that  body.  He  appealed  to  France  in  a  letter 
exposing  grave  abuses  in  the  system  of  justice  in  Canada, 
and  was  met  by  the  request  to  prove  his  charge  on  pain  of 
being  treated  as  a  libeler.  Auteuil  assembled  evidence 
against  the  Governor  and  Intendant  and  went  to  France. 
Pontchartrain  received  him  with  displeasure,  kept  him  wait- 
ing for  six  weeks,  and  then  dismissed  him  from  office/ 
For  a  number  of  years  after  his  return  to  Canada,  he  con- 
tinued to  address  memoirs  to  the  King,  in  which  he  pointed 
out  the  preponderating  influence  of  the  Governor  and  In- 
tendant in  the  deliberations  of  the  Council,  and  the  conse- 
quently bad  administration  of  justice.  His  criticism  in- 
cluded even  the  King's  minister.  In  one  memoir  he  proposed 
that  Pontchartrain's  power  over  Canada  be  limited;  in  an- 
other, that  three  Councillors  of  State  be  named  to  receive 
the  complaints  of  the  Canadians.  He  further  proposed  that 
the  Governor  be  maintained  in  office  not  more  than  six 
years,  reminding  the  King  of  his  Declaration  of  1698  which 
provided  for  a  three-year  term.  These  documents,  written 
after  he  was  out  of  office,  indicate  that  he  had  the  welfare 
of  the  country  at  heart.  As  Attorney-General  he  had  con- 
sistently opposed  the  intimidation  of  the  Council  by  the 
Governor.  When  the  Intendant  stood  with  the  Governor, 
Auteuil  attacked  them  both.2  Although  personal  ambition 

1  Memoir  to  the  King  written  in   1712.    Corres.   Gen.,  series   C  xi, 
vol.  xxxiii,  pt.  i,  pp.  429-437. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  xxii,  pt.  i,  pp.  363,  et  seq.  and  vol.  xxxiv,  pt.  i,  pp.  530, 
et  seq.    In  his  memoirs  he  poses   as  the   champion  of  justice.    For 
example,  Vaudreuil  desired  some  unjust  decision,  to  which  the  Raudots 
assented  in  an  attempt  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  him,  as  did  also 
Lotbiniere,  his  uncle,  Monseignet,  Lotbiniere's  son-in-law,  and  Delino, 
his  protege.    Of  the  other  Councillors  the  greater  part  feared  to  offend 
the  Governor,  or  knew  no  better,  and  consequently  Auteuil  had  been 
exposed  to  a  thousand  disagreeable  things  because  he  wished  to  do 
his  duty. 


MEMBERSHIP  AND  ORGANIZATION 

was  probably  responsible  for  some  of  his  acts,  the  chief 
motive  was  the  desire  to  defend  the  independence  of  the 
Council. 

Later  Attorneys-General  also  attempted  to  maintain  the 
position  of  the  Council.  In  1720  Collet  complained  that 
quarrels  between  citizens  and  soldiers  invariably  resulted  in 
the  imprisonment  of  the  former,  although  the  latter  were 
always  the  aggressors,  and  that  such  citizens  were  kept  in 
prison  by  the  Governor  because  the  judges  did  not  dare  to 
bring  them  to  trial.  Collet  recommended  that  the  Governor 
be  limited  in  his  power  over  civilians  to  persons  charged 
with  .infractions  of  his  own  ordinances,  and  persons  guilty 
of  disrespect  to  his  person.1  It  is  evident,  therefore,  from 
this  sketch  of  the  acts  of  various  Attorneys-General  that 
they  consistently  opposed  encroachments  upon  the  jurisdic- 
tion and  independence  of  the  Council. 

Other  Officers 

Besides  the  officials  described  above  and  the  ordinary 
Councillors  there  were  numerous  other  officers  attached  to 
the  Council.  The  clerical  Councillor  added  in  1703  served 
as  a  permanent  representative  of  ecclesiastical  interests;2 
the  assistant  Councillors  first  commissioned  in  1741  com- 
pleted the  quorum  and  served  as  reporters.3  Clerks,  bail- 
iffs and  executioner  complete  the  list.  The  tale  of  the 

1  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xlii,  pt.  i,  p.  182,  et  seq. 

2 "...  lequel  etant  toujours  en  fonction  sera  plus  instruit  et  plus  a 
portee  de  veille  a  la  conservation  des  droits  de  I'Eglise."  Edits  et 
Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  300. 

8  The  functions  of  the  assesseurs  are  thus  described  in  the  Letters 
Patent  of  1742:  "il  n'y.auront  voix  deliberative  que  dans  le  juge- 
ment  des  affaires  dont  ils  seront  rapporteurs,  a  moins  que  les  autres 
dont  ils  ne  seront  pas  rapporteurs,  il  ne  se  trouvat  pas  un  nombre, 
suffisant  de  juges  auquel  cas  ils  auront  pareillement  voix  deliberative 
comme  aussi  dans  le  cas  de  partage  d'opinions  entre  les  autres  juges." 
Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  562. 
t 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

latter  is  curious  enough  to  relate.  The  office  of  executioner 
was  in  such  ill  repute  that  it  could  be  filled  for  the  most 
part  only  with  condemned  criminals  whose  death  penalty 
was  remitted.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Jacques  Elie  was 
made  executioner,  only  to  meet  a  violent  death  in  1710  be- 
cause of  his  office.  Thereafter  it  was  more  difficult  than 
ever  to  fill  the  post.  Finally,  the  King  sent  over  a  man 
who  was  so  stricken  with  madness  and  given  to  drunken- 
ness and  so  furious  in  his  cups,  that  it  was  impossible  with 
the  most  severe  chastisement  to  get  him  to  do  his  duty  as 
executioner.  He  was  sent  back  to  France  in  1730.  His 
successor  was  a  feeble  old  man  much  given  to  wine,  and  so 
weak,  in  fact,  that  he  found  it  difficult  even  to  burn  in 
effigy  three  criminals  who  had  escaped.  It  was  later  agreed 
that  a  negro  was  a  more  suitable  person  for  executioner  in 
Canada.  One  was  secured,  and  also  a  negress  to  comfort 
his  idle  moments.  In  1744  Hocquart  was  instructed  to  sell 
her  since  the  negro  hangman  had  died  and  was  succeeded 
by  a  white  man.1 

1  Jugemenls  et  Delib.,  vol.  v,  p.   191 ;   vol.  vi,  p.  74.    Carres.  Gen., 
series  C  xi,  vol.  Hi,  pt.  i,  pp.  52,  70,  115. 


CHAPTER  V 
METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

Time  of  Sessions 

THE  meetings  of  the  Council  of  Quebec  were  held 
continuously  throughout  the  year  with  the  exception  of 
four  recesses.  The  Council  discontinued  its  meetings 
during  the  Christmas  season  until  the  first  Monday  after 
Twelfth  Night.  In  the  spring  it  declared  a  recess  of 
from  six  to  ten  weeks  to  allow  Councillors  to  sow  their 
crops.  It  reconvened  on  the  first  Monday  after  the 
Feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  which  falls  upon  June  24. 
The  autumn  recess  for  harvesting  the  crops  occurred 
during  September  and  the  first  or  second  week  of  Octo- 
ber. Towards  the  close  of  the  latter  month  Councillors 
voted  a  recess  to  enable  them  to  write  their  letters  in 
time  for  the  vessels  returning  to  France.  Time  and 
length  of  recesses  became  fixed  only  in  the  early 
"  eighties  ". 

During  the  greater  part  of  the  Council's  history,  the 
regular  sessions  occurred  on  Monday  of  each  week. 
During  the  latter  years  of  the  French  dominion  Saturday 
was  the  day  for  regular  sessions,  and,  finally,  the  Council 
met  at  monthly  intervals.1  Special  sessions,  called  by 

1 "  . . .  il  seroit  inutile  de  s'assembler,  suivant  1'usage  ordinaire  du  con- 
seil,  tous  les  samedis  de  chaque  semaine,  n'y  ayant  aucune  affaire;  il 
estime  qu'il  suffiroit  que  e  conseil  voulut  indiquer  un  jour  certain  dans 
le  cours  du  mois  prochain  ou  sera  fixee  la  rentree  ordinaire  du  dit 
conseil."  The  Council  acted  upon  this  suggestion  and  appointed  a 
future  date  for  the  next  session.  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  vol.  ii,  p.  254. 
161]  161 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

the  Intendant  for  the  consideration  of  important  busi- 
ness,1 fell  upon  other  week-days  during  both  term  and 
recess  time.  Sometimes  a  recess  was  filled  with  as  many 
meetings  as  the  regular  term  time. 

Regular  sessions  began  at  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning 
and  closed  at  half  after  one.  Any  afternoon  session 
began  at  three  o'clock.2  Special  sessions  might  be  called 
for  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning,3  in  which  case  they 
were  adjourned  at  noon. 

Place  of  Sessions 

The  early  meeting  places  of  the  Sovereign  Council 
were  unpretentious  in  character.  The  Council  was  a 
new  and  untried  institution  in  a  frontier  community.  It 
is  not  surprising  then  that  its  surroundings  were  mean 
and  unimpressive,  nor  that  its  prestige  and  sphere  of 
usefulness  quickly  outstripped  the  dignity  of  its  place  of 
meeting. 

Governor  Mezy  held  the  first  few  meetings  in  the 
Chateau  St.  Louis  and  summoned  the  Council  thither 
upon  various  occasions,4  but  routine  court  was  held 

1  Both  Governor  and  Intendant  were  empowered  to  call  special  ses- 
sions, but  the  latter  assumed  the  sole  exercise  of  the  power.  In  1729 
the  King  legalized  this  assumption.  The  litigant  desiring  to  rush  his 
suit  appealed  to  the  Intendant,  who  summoned  the  Councillors  through 
the  agency  of  the  bailiff  of  hearings  (huissier  audiencier).  Supple- 
ment Canadian  Archives  for  1899,  p.  136. 

*For  examples,  see  Jugements  et  Deliberations,  vol.  ii,  pp.  659,  754,  501. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  756.  They  were  occasionally  called  for  seven  o'clock.  Ibid. 
p.  507. 

4  I  should  judge  that  the  hall  in  which  the  election  of  the  Mayor  was 
held  was  in  the  Chateau  rather  than  in  a  small  house :  "  se  sont  pre- 
sentez  en  la  Chambre  du  Conseil,  en  presence  du  diet  Conseil  assemble 
nombre  des  plus  considerables  habitans  de  cette  dicte  ville  et  banlieue 
et  ressort  d'Icelle,  etc."  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  15. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE  ^ 

in  the  house  of  Jean  le  Vasseur,  the  court  usher.1  The 
Council  had  meantime  called  upon  Peronne  du  Mesnil  to 
vacate  a  house  belonging  to  the  King,  which  they  des- 
tined for  public  uses.2  This  house  was  probably  the  hall 
of  justice  (Palais)  mentioned  in  1664.  Here,  after  two 
months'  residence  with  the  usher,  the  Council  held  its 
sessions.  The  anticipated  arrival  of  Tracy  caused  the 
Council  to  vacate  the  " palais"  that  it  might  be  fitted 
up  for  his  reception.  Therefore  in  June,  1665,  the 
Council  resumed  its  sessions  in  the  house  of  the  usher.3 

A  month  later  Tracy  summoned  the  Council  to  meet 
in  the  Chateau,  where  later  the  Governor's  antechamber 
was  definitely  assigned  to  it.4  During  the  controversies 
of  1679  to  1681  this  situation  became  embarrassing.  The 
addition  of  two  new  officers  in  1674  added  overcrowding 
to  the  annoyances  caused  by  the  Governor's  soldiers. 
The  Attorney-General  had  no  room  where  he  could  con- 
fer with  his  subordinates,  the  royal  attorneys,  and  had 

1  December  5,  1663,  Le  Vasseur  is  paid  250  livres  annual  salary  for 
services  "  et  pour  la  chambre  du  Conseil  par  lui  fournie."  Ibid.,  p.  77. 

1  September  20,  1663,  ibid.,  p.  4. 

1 "  Le  Conseil,  attendu  que  le  pallais  est  reserve  et  qu'on  y  travaille 
incessamment  pour  y  loger  Monseigneur  de  Tracy,  a  ordonne  qu'affiches 
seront  mises  pour  faire  savoir  a  tous  que  le  Conseil  se  tiendra  aux  jours 
ordinaires  dans  le  maison  de  la  vigne  [nickname  for  Le  Vasseur]  huis- 
sier  ou  il  se  tenoit  ce  devant."  Ibid.,  p.  362.  October  17,  1667,  he  brings 
in  a  bill  "  pour  1'occupation  de  sa  maison  par  le  Conseil."  Ibid.,  p.  456. 

4  He  held  his  first  Council  on  July  6,  1665,  "  en  la  premiere  Salle  du 
Chasteau  Sainct  Louis,"  his  second  in  "  son  hostel,"  and  succeeding 
ones  likewise.  Therefore,  during  1665,  1666,  1667,  the  Council  met  in 
the  house  of  the  usher,  the  former  palais,  now  M.  de  Tracy's  hostel, 
and  occasionally  in  the  Chateau.  The  usher  is  not  paid  after  1667,  and 
there  is  this  record  for  November  3,  1668 :  "  Prononce  aux  diets  Chamot 
et  Tolomy  mandez  en  la  chambre  du  Conseil  Souverain  au  Chasteau 
St.  Louis  present."  By  1668  I  conclude  that  the  Council  was  assigned 
a  room  in  the  Chateau.  Ibid.,  p.  530. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

to  receive  them  in  his  house.1  There  was  no  room  where 
judges  who  had  been  challenged  might  wait  until  another 
case  should  be  called. 

Agitation  for  the  erection  of  a  Palais  de  Justice  was 
started  as  early  as  1679 2  and  was  kept  up  until  the  royal 
government  purchased  and  remodeled  the  building,  which 
had  been  constructed  by  Jean  Talon  as  a  brewery.3  On 
November  29,  1688,  the  Council  indicated  its  intention 
of  removing  into  the  new  Palais  de  Justice  on  the  first 
Monday  after  the  Fete  des  Rois  of  the  approaching  year.4 
For  the  first  few  years  the  Council  occupied  a  smaller 
room  in  the  new  building,  the  Council  chamber  not  yet 
being  finished.  On  January  7,  1692,  however,  the  Coun- 
cil was  finally  installed  in  a  suitable  hall,  abandoning  its 
old  room  to  the  provost  court  of  Quebec. 5 

On  the  night  of  January  5,  1713,  this  building  was  de- 

1  The  royal  attorney  of  Quebec  did  not  wish  to  wait  upon  the 
Attorney-General,  whose  reply  is  illuminating  as  to  conditions  in  the 
Chateau ;  "  icy  a  Quebec  ou  le  Conseil  tient  sa  seance  dans  1'une  des 
salles  du  Chasteau  ou  il  n'y  a  aucun  lieu  designe  pour  les  gens  du  Roy, 
il  semble  que  le  dit  sieur  boulduc  par  derision  ou  pour  avillir  son 
ministere  veuille  luy  designer  la  porte  de  cette  salle  pour  parquet,  Et 
que  la  en  presence  des  gardes  de  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  des  officiers 
et  des  soldats  de  la  garnison,  et  des  partyes  qui  s'y  trouvent  ordinaire- 
ment,  il  y  entende  les  avis  que  le  dit  procureur  du  Roy  a  luy  donner 
concernant  les  interests  du  Roy  ou  du  public,"  etc.  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  272. 

2 "...  jusques  a  ce  qu'il  ayt  plu  a  Sa  Majeste  de  faire  bastir  un  Pallais 
pour  la  justice,"  ibid.,  p.  272. 

*  On  March  10,  1685,  the  King  orders  the  Council  to  move  into  the 
new  Palais  de  Justice  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  finished :  "  qu'il  soit  trans- 
fere  dans  le  palais,  qu'elle  a  ordonne  etre  bati  a  cet  effet  en  la  dit 
ville,  en  lieu  presentement  appele  la  Brasserie."  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i, 
P-  254- 

4  Epiphany,  twelve  days  after  Christmas. 

5"Aujourd'huy  le  Conseil  sest  assemble  dans  sa  Chambre,  Et  a  1'aisse 
a  la  prevoste  celle  ou  II  avoit  continue  de  tenir  au  Pallais."  Juge- 
ments  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  597. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

stroyed  by  fire.1  Plans  were  at  once  drawn  up  to  replace 
it  while  the  foundations  were  still  in  a  condition  to  be 
utilized.  The  new  Palais  de  Justice  contained  the  chapel 
and  prison,  besides  the  Intendant's  dwelling,  the  bolting- 
room,  the  armory,  the  Council  chamber  and  the  provost 
courtroom.2  Pending  this  reconstruction  the  Sovereign 
Council  assembled  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  the  Bishop's 
palace.  There  being  but  one  hall  available  for  such  pur- 
poses, the  Council  and  the  court  of  the  Provost  occupied 
it  on  different  days.3  The  second  Palais  de  Justice  was 
"  incomparably  more  beautiful,"  says  a  contemporary.4 

During  the  Christmas  season  of  1725  this  building 
burned,  leaving  only  the  walls,  the  vaults  and  the  chim- 
ney. Begon  for  the  second  time  took  measures  to  re- 
build the  palace,  in  order,  he  wrote,  to  make  use  of  the 
walls  before  they  became  impaired.5  In  this  building  the 
Council  sat  until  1759,  when  it  removed  to  Montreal, 

'Letter  from  Begon  to  the  Minister  February  u,  1713:  He  could 
not  imagine  the  cause  of  the  fire.  He  had  spent  the  day  at  the  Gov- 
ernor's with  Madame  Begon.  His  valet  and  two  maids  lost  their  lives 
in  the  fire.  His  secretary,  found  half- frozen  in  the  garden,  died  two 
days  later.  He  has  lost  property  to  the  value  of  3,000  livres,  besides 
1,500  livres  in  card-money.  He  asks  for  indemnity.  Collection  Moreau 
St.  Mery,  Memorials  1540-1759. 

1  Minister  to  Engineer  Beaucours,  July  I,  1713.  Supplement  Canadian 
Archives  Report  for  1899,  p.  471. 

1  The  Council  met  each  Tuesday  and  the  Provost  Court  sat  each 
Wednesday.  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  550. 

*  Soeur  Juchereau,  Histoire  de  I'Hotel-Dieu,  quoted  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  xl. 

5  "  Dec.  25,  1725,  Le  Palais  brule,  il  y  a  13  ans  et  rebati  par  les  soins  de 
M.  Begon  a  brule  une  seconde  fois,  Le  feu  a  pris  par  un  poele  dans  la 
chambre  de  Monsr.  d'Aigremont  commissaire  a  7  h.  du  Soir."  Canadian 
Missions,  Parkman  Collection,  "  Extraits  du  Journal  des  Jesuites,  1710- 
1759."  A  letter  of  June  30,  1726,  gives  the  time  as  nine  o'clock  of  De- 
cember 28.  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1904,  Appendix  K,  p.  76. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

thereafter  to  meet  in  the  "palace"  of  the  Intendant.1 
The  second  building  constructed  by  the  efforts  of  Begon 
was  destroyed  in  the  siege  of  1775.*  Thus  the  Palais  de 
Justice  did  not  long  survive  the  Conseil  Superieur  of 
New  France  itself. 

Quorum 

A  quorum  in  the  Council  varied  with  the  nature  of 
the  judicial  business.  The  King's  Declaration  of  1685 
provided  that  suits  in  which  members  of  the  Council 
were  involved  should  be  tried  by  the  Intendant  and  six 
judges,  chosen  by  him  from  among  the  unchallenged 
Councillors  or  from  outside ;  that  three  Councillors 
should  constitute  a  quorum  to  pass  upon  objections  of 
suitors  to  certain  judges ;  that  if  three  Councillors  did 
not  remain  unchallenged,  judges  of  the  lower  court  should 
be  summoned  to  complete  the  quorum  of  three ;  and  that 
five  judges  should  give  judgment  in  criminal  suits.  If 
five  Councillors  did  not  remain  unchallenged  in  a  criminal 
suit,  the  presiding  officer  was  to  choose  other  officers 
even  of  the  lower  courts,  except  the  court  from  the 
judgment  of  which  the  appeal  was  made.3  In  civil  suits 
but  three  judges  were  necessary. 

It  was  sometimes  difficult  to  obtain  a  quorum  of  three 
judges  for  the  settlement  of  ordinary  affairs.  On  Octo- 
ber 31,  1689,  Peuvret,  chief  clerk,  was  summoned  to  give 
the  pen  to  the  usher  and  sit  as  Councillor,  in  order  to 
make  a  quorum.4  On  June  27,  1701,  but  three  Council- 
lors, the  Attorney-General  and  the  clerk,  being  present, 
it  was  asked  if  two  of  those  Councillors  could  call  a  third 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  253. 

!  lugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  introd.,  p.  xli. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  253-254. 

4  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  in,  p.  362. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE  ify 

judge,  should  one  of  them  be  challenged  or  interested 
in  the  case.  It  was  decided  for  ordinary  justice  two 
judges  had  the  right  to  nominate  a  third.1 

Even  with  a  nominal  membership  of  twelve  after  1703, 
a  similar  method  of  obtaining  a  quorum  was  instituted 
in  1710.  On  January  20  of  that  year  the  Provost  of  the 
Marechaussee  and  the  practitioner  Gaillard  were  sum- 
moned to  complete  a  quorum.  At  this  meeting  the 
presence  of  but  two  Councillors,  one  of  whom  had  to 
act  as  Attorney-General,  made  these  appointments  neces- 
sary.2 The  new  judges  served  during  the  greater  part 
of  the  year.  On  December  14,  1711,  a  case  in  which 
six  of  the  Councillors  were  interested  was  tried  by  the 
other  two  members  present  and  three  persons  drawn 
from  outside.3  In  such  cases  as  these,  provisions  of  the 
Declaration  of  1685  were  followed  in  order  to  avoid 
delays  in  the  administration  of  justice. 

Ceremonial 

The  elaborate  ceremonies  and  etiquette  of  the  Parle- 
ment  of  Paris  were  either  not  practiced  at  all  or  were 
greatly  modified  in  New  France.  There  were  times 
when  the  Sovereign  Council,  even  in  earlier  years,  ad- 
ministered justice  in  an  impressive  and  ceremonious 
manner,  but  there  were  factors  that  worked  against 
producing  such  an  effect.  Councillors  attended  court 
sessions  in  ordinary  clothes,  some  with  swords,  others 
without  them.4  The  removal  of  the  hat  being  an  ac- 

1  Jugements  et  D&lib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  585. 

2  The  reasons  for  the  scanty  attendance  are  thus  given :  "qu'attendu 
1'absence  de  plusieurs  de  Messieurs  dont  les  uns  Sont  en  france,  d'autres 
a  montreal,  d'autres  sur  leurs  terres,  et  d'autres  qui  par  leurs  Infirmitez 
ne  peuvent  assister  regulierement  au  Conel."    Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  7. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  285. 

4  Mention  of  Councillors  as  wearing  robes  is  made  in  only  one  place. 


!68       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

knowledgment  of  inferiority  or  deference,  Councillors 
sat  covered,  while  suitors  pleaded  their  causes,  some- 
times with  swords  at  their  sides  but  with  hat  in  hand.1 
Because  of  the  intimacy  existing  between  members  of  a 
frontier  community,  the  aloofness  of  French  Parlemen- 
taires  was  impossible.  Councillors  rose  early,  went  to 
the  tavern  for  breakfast  perhaps,  and  hurried  over  in  a 
group  to  be  in  time  for  a  seven  o'clock  session.2  Each 
one  having  taken  his  place,  the  Intendant  determined 
the  presence  of  a  quorum.  During  the  second  adminis- 
tration of  Frontenac  it  was  the  custom  to  despatch  an 
usher  to  invite  the  Governor  to  "come  and  take  his 
place  in  the  Council."  When  the  usher  or  the  clerk  an- 
nounced the  approach  of  that  dignitary,  two  Councillors 
were  deputed  to  escort  him  from  the  stairway  to  his  seat. 
Considerable  ceremony  probably  attended  the  meetings 
of  the  Council  when  Tracy,  Courcelles,  Laval  and  Talon 
participated,  and  again  when  Vaudreuil  and  the  Raudots, 
father  and  son,  were  at  the  head  of  the  Council  board; 
but  in  no  case  does  the  picture  of  a  Council  meeting 
approach  the  splendor  of  a  session  of  the  Parlement  of 
Paris.3 

Precedence  at  the   Council  board   was  highly  prized, 

Minister  to  Meulles,  May  31,  1686,  Supplement  Canadian  Archives  Re- 
port for  1899,  p.  274. 

1  In  1732  the  King  decided  that  gentlemen  could  plead  their  causes 
without  laying  aside  their  side  arms,  since  Councillors  sat  with  swords 
at  their  sides.  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  Fiii,  vol.  xii,  p.  12. 

J  Account  of  the  preliminaries  to  the  session  of  March  16,  1681,  by 
Villeray:  "II  auroit  este.a  la  buvette  trouver  let  dit  procureur  general 
(sur  les  sept  heures).  .  .  .  Et  dans  le  moment  la  Compagnie  ayant  quitte 
la  buvette  pour  entrer  [la  chambre  du  Conseil],  Et  estant  entree  Et 
chacun  des  Messieurs  ayant  pris  sa  place,  etc."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol. 
ii,  p.  507. 

s  See  Desmaze,  Le  Parlement  de  Paris,  pp.  307-309. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

and  was  the  subject  of  several  royal  and  conciliar  orders. 
The  usual  arrangement  around  the  long  rectangular 
Council  table  was  as  follows.  The  Governor  sat  at  the 
head  of  the  table  with  the  Bishop  on  his  right  hand  and 
the  Intendant  on  his  left.  Before  him  on  either  side  of 
the  table  sat  the  Councillors  according  to  rank  and  length 
of  service,  the  more  honorable  places  being  those  nearest 
the  three  great  dignitaries.  Nearest  the  Bishop  sat  the 
Dean,  on  his  right  the  next  oldest  of  the  Councillors. 
Opposite  them  was  the  First  Councillor,  and  at  the  foot 
of  the  table  the  Attorney- General  and  the  chief  clerk. 

The  addition  of  new  officials  somewhat  disarranged 
this  plan  of  seating.  During  the  existence  of  the  Com- 
pany of  the  West  Indies  the  General  Agent  was  privileged 
to  take  precedence  over  the  First  Councillor.1  In  1730 
the  clerical  Councillor,  who  like  the  other  Councillors 
had  previously  sat  according  to  seniority,  was  given  a 
seat  upon  the  right  hand  of  the  Dean,  or,  in  his  absence, 
upon  the  right  hand  of  the  eldest  Councillor.2  He  was 
thus  always  separated  from  the  Bishop  by  one  Councillor. 
In  later  times  the  occasional  presence  of  the  Provost  of  the 
Marechausee, 3  or  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Marine, 4  or 
of  one  or  two  of  the  assistant  Councillors,5  increased  the 
number  at  the  lower  end  of  the  table.  These  men  sat 
below  the  last  Councillor.  At  the  first  session  of  each 
term,  all  notaries,  ushers,  and  bailiffs,  reported  in  the 

1 "  Voix  deliberative  au  dit  Conseil  souverain  .  .  .  et  seance  audessus 
du  premie  conseiller."  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  iii,  p.  37. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  521.  See  also  the  Abbe  de  la  Tour,  Histoire  de  la  vie 
de  M.  de  Laval,  book  vii,  for  the  way  in  which  La  Tour  obtained  the 
same  rights  that  the  clerical  Councillors  in  the  French  courts  enjoyed. 

3  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  238. 

4  Doutre  et  Lareau,  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien,  vol.  i,  p.  287. 
8  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  562,  articles  iii  and  v. 


I7o 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 


chamber  to  respond  to  any  complaints  made  against 
them.1  Towards  the  close  of  our  period,  the  ushers  be- 
came so  remiss  in  their  attendance  that,  upon  complaint 
of  the  first  usher,  the  Council  ordered  all  the  ushers  to 
be  present  during  the  entire  time  that  the  court  should 
be  in  session.2 

Judicial  Procedure 

During  the  first  forty  years  there  are  few  cases  of  any 
litigant  being  represented  by  another.  During  that  time 
each  person  pleaded  his  own  cause.  When  he  appeared 
before  the  Council  he  probably  spoke  to  the  broad  backs 
of  a  third  of  its  members,  since  they  sat  around  a  table. 
It  is  probable  that  there  was  a  particular  portion  of  the 
hall  enclosed  with  a  railing,  upon  which  the  witness 
leaned.3  The  witness  was  at  liberty  to  object  to  any 
Councillors  whom  he  deemed  to  be  prejudiced  against 
him.  The  grounds  of  his  objection  were  judged  with- 
out appeal  by  the  other  Councillors.  If  they  were  de- 
cided to  be  frivolous,  he  was  occasionally  fined  for  con- 
tempt of  court.4  Relationship  to  the  fourth  and  fifth 
degree  with  any  Councillor5  on  the  part  of  either  of  the 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  788. 

2  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  225. 

5  The  evidence  at  my  command  is  scanty  and  conflicting.  On  October 
17,  1667,  the  usher  asks  compensation  for  "  travaux  de  menuiserie  par 
luy  faictz  au  pallais  tant  en  portes  chassis  qu'en  la  facture  d'un  barreau 
et  autres  ouvrages,  etc."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  456.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  seemed  to  be  no  particular  place  for  Abbe  Fenelon  in 
1674.  He  walked  up  and  down  the  room.  He  sat  down  at  the  Council 
table.  They  gave  him  a  chair  in  the  corner.  There  is  no  mention  of 
a  space  railed  off  where  the  accused  might  stand. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  237.  He  was  never  fined  the  sum  named  in 
the  Ordinance  of  1667,  title  xxiv,  article  xxix. 

See  title  xxiv,  articles  i  and  ii,  Ordinance  of  1667,  Edits  et  Ord., 
vol.  i,  p.  177. 


I7l]  METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE  I7j 

litigants  was  considered  sufficient  ground  for  disqualify- 
ing him,  and  even  religious  connections  (les  alliances 
spirituelles} ,  that  is,  the  relationship  of  godfather  to  the 
families  of  litigants,  was  a  disqualification  up  to  1708.' 

Upon  an  appeal  from  one  of  the  lower  courts,  the 
clerk  of  that  court  filed  all  papers  with  the  clerk  of  the 
Sovereign  Council.  These  documents  were  accessible  to 
either  party,  and  were  submitted  to  the  Councillor,  who 
was  deputed  to  investigate  the  case,  and  who,  after  his 
investigation,  handed  them  over  to  the  Attorney-General. 
Usually  a  case  involving  written  evidence  was  reported 
upon  by  Attorney-General  and  Councillor  reporter  in 
writing,  although  in  cases  of  a  grave  character  the  for- 
mer was  allowed  to  give  his  conclusions  viva  voce.  The 
earlier  form  of  procedure  was  for  the  Attorney-General 
to  leave  the  chamber  after  giving  his  conclusions,  if  the 
case  were  a  criminal  or  important  civil  suit.2  Even  in 
the  suits  in  which  he  remained  in  the  hall,  he  interfered 
with  the  unbiased  deliberations  of  the  Councillors  to 
such  an  extent3  that  he  and  all  persons  except  the  judges 
were  finally  excluded  from  the  chamber  in  all  cases,  oral 
or  written,  trivial  or  grave,  returning  only  when  a  new 

1  The  Decree  of  1708  provides:  "que  dorenavent  les  dits  juges  seront 
tenus  de  demeurer  en  causes  de  ceux  avec  qui  ils  auront  des  dites 
alliances  sans  qu'il  leur  soit  libre  de  se  retirer,  ni  aux  parties  de  les 
recuser,"  etc.  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  153.  This  action  on  the  King's  part 
was  due  to  the  complaints  of  Raudot,  that  three  Councillors  had  been 
excluded  in  an  important  case  because  they  were  godfathers  of  Madame 
de  la  Forest's  children,  and  that  this  exclusion  meant  the  summons  of 
inexperienced  outsiders  to  complete  the  quorum.  Correspondance 
Gencrale,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xxvi,  pt.  i,  pp.  21.  et  seq. 

1  See  the  Royal  Order  of  1704,  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  301. 

3  Frontenac  claimed  that  the  Attorney-General  interrupted  the  de- 
liberations of  Councillors  on  the  pretence  of  throwing  new  light  upon 
each  point,  and  that  he  argued  with  the  judges  to  change  their 
opinions.  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xiii.  pt.  i,  p.  257. 


172        THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

cause  was  called — a  very  inconvenient  process,  according 
to  the  Abbe  de  la  Tour.1 

When  the  case  came  to  deliberation,  the  President 
called  upon  the  Councillor  last  installed  for  his  opinion, 
then  upon  his  seniors,  pronouncing  his  own  opinion  last. 
This  method  had  the  advantage  of  restraining  Councillors 
from  concurring  with  Governor  or  Intendant.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  sometimes  led  to  a  blind  following  of  the 
Attorney-General's  conclusions  or  of  the  report  of  the 
Councillor  reporter,  on  the  part  of  less  experienced  mem- 
bers.2 Delino,  on  this  account,  proposed  that  senior  and 
junior  members  give  their  opinions  alternately,  but  the 
old  method  was  adhered  to.3  Opinions  of  Councillors 
were  not  spread  upon  the  minutes  except  in  a  few  cases 

1  Vie  de  M.  de  Laval,  book  vii. 

1  Attorney-General  d'Auteuil  confirmed  his  enemy's  memoir  when 
he  wrote  that  hitherto  he  had  given  his  conclusion  orally  upon  every 
subject,  upon  which  expositions  of  law  Councillors  had  formed  their 
conclusions,  and  that  justice  would  greatly  suffer  because  of  the 
meagre  experience  and  study  of  the  Councillors,  of  whom  the  eldest 
had  hardly  been  three  years  in  office.  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol. 
xii,  pt.  i,  pp.  363,  et  seq. 

8 "  L'on  observe  au  Conseil  de  prendre  1'advis  du  dernier  Conseiller 
Ensuitte  de  celuy  qui  le  precede  et  cela  jusqu'au  President. 

"  Cette  maniere  peut  quelquefois  estre  tres  prejudiciable  aux  parties 
En  ce  que  naturellement  les  derniers  Conseillers  n'ont  pas  1'experience 
des  anciens  dans  le  fait  du  droit,  sont  tres  souvent  obliges  d'estre  de 
1'advis  des  conclusions  du  Procureur  General  ou  de  1'advis  du  Con- 
seiller raporteur.  Et  comme  il  y  a  peu  de  voix  au  Conseil  il  le 
rencontre  assez  souvent  qu'il  y  aura  quatre  ou  cinq  Voix  de  1'advis 
de  Monsieur  qui  rendent  par  la  inutiles  les  voix  de  deux  ou  trois 
anciens  qui  restent  a  parler.  C'est  pourquoi  pour  obvier  un  si  grand 
mal  je  croirois  qu'il  seroit  bon  d'ordonner  qu'apres  que  le  procureur 
General  auroit  parle  Celuy  qui  presideroit  prendroit  1'advis  d'un  ancien 
qui  seroit  a  la  teste  du  Conseil.  Ensuitte  un  de  la  [derniere]  puis  un 
de  la  teste  observant  cet  ordre  jusqu'au  qu'il  cut  pris  toutes  les  voix." 
Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xi,  pt.  i,  p.  600. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

of  a  somewhat  political  nature ; '  and  the  dislike  to  this 
publication  of  the  secret  workings  of  the  court  was 
evident.  The  Attorney-General  expressed  the  view  of 
the  Council  when  he  said  in  answer  to  Governor  Fron- 
tenac's  demand  for  the  inscribing  of  opinions  upon  the 
minutes,  that  recorded  opinions  could  only  serve  to 
embarrass  Councillors  and  intimidate  them  in  the  execu- 
tion of  justice.2 

A  judgment  usually  expressed  the  view  of  the  majority 
of  the  judges,  but  sometimes  was  only  arrived  at  by  a 
compromise.  When  opinions  were  equally  divided,  the 
less  servere  punishment  was  meted  out.  Whereas  the 
Council  usually  followed  the  advice  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral as  to  law,  it  invariably  determined  the  fact  for  itself. 

In  criminal  cases  the  Councillor  reporter  and  the  clerk 
went  immediately  after  the  session  to  read  the  decision 
to  the  prisoner,  and  sentence  was  executed  the  same 
day.  In  civil  cases,  the  expenses  of  the  suit  as  well  as 
the  damages,  allowed  by  the  court  upon  estimates  made 
by  the  Councillor  reporter,  were  collected,  if  necessary, 
through  imprisonment.  Refusal  to  pay  damages  was 
also  met  by  the  sale  of  property,  starting  with  the  per- 
sonal property  of  the  defeated  litigant.  If  this  person 
opposed  such  action,  he  was  summoned  before  the  Coun- 
cil, and  unless  he  could  show  just  cause  why  execution 
of  the  decree  should  be  stayed,  he  was  subjected  to  a 
fine  of  12  livres.  At  different  times,  varying  sums  were 
charged  appellants  who  did  not  win  their  causes.  This 
was  to  prevent  foolish  appeals. 

Although  appeal  might  be  made  to  the  King  from  a 
judgment  or  decree  of  the  Council,  the  execution  of  it 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  940-941;  vol.  ii,  pp.  308-309. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  in,  p.  892. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      [174 

could  not  be  stopped,  but  the  party  who  received  judg- 
ment had  to  give  surety  for  restitution,  in  case  the  Coun- 
cil of  State  should  annul  the  action  of  the  Sovereign 
Council  and  commit  the  trial  of  the  case  to  another 
court.1 

The  procedure  in  some  trials  was  complicated,  consist- 
ing, for  example,  of  examination  of  witnesses,  with  whom 
the  prisoner  was  confronted,  of  re-examinations  and  re- 
confrontations,  of  deposition  of  the  accused,  of  interroga- 
tion of  the  same  in  the  Council  chamber,  of  conclusions 
of  the  Attorney-General  upon  the  objections  of  the  pris- 
oner to  certain  judges,  of  decisions  of  the  Council  upon 
the  grounds  of  challenge,  of  inquisitions  of  the  prisoner, 
of  the  summary  of  the  case  by  the  Attorney-General,  of 
the  report  of  the  Councillor  Commissioner,  and  of  delib- 
rations  of  the  Council.2  Failure  to  conduct  the  trial 
according  to  the  laws  of  procedure  sometimes  resulted 
in  a  conciliar  vote  of  censure  upon  the  Attorney-General 
or  his  substitute.3 

Committee  System 

It  is  evident  that  the  Council  was  forced  to  delegate 
considerable  power  to  individual  members  who  should 

1  For  an  excellent  account  which  I  have  verified  from  the  records, 
see  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xv,  pt.  i,  pp.  124-137. 

1  A  moderately  short  trial  is  here  summarized.  Jugements  et  Delib., 
vol.  iii,  p.  44. 

*  In  1678  the  Council  condemned  the  acting  Attorney-General  be- 
cause (i),  he  had  not  presented  to  the  Council  for  its  judgment,  the 
claim  of  the  Provost  to  take  cognizance  of  the  Leclerc  case,  (2)  the 
papers  of  accusation  furnished  by  the  Provost  had  been  assumed  to 
be  valid,  without  presenting  them  to  the  Lieutenant-General  of  the 
provost  court  of  Quebec,  and  (3)  in  an  affair  which  had  concerned 
the  murder  of  a  woman  with  child,  he  had  advised  sentencing  the 
murderer  merely  to  a  fine  of  10  livres  and  six  years  additional  service 
in  the  King's  regiment.  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  209. 


I75]  METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

conduct  most  of  the  preliminary  steps  in  a  trial  or  a  civil 
suit.  This  committee  system  began  on  October  27, 
1663,  with  the  assignment  of  certain  cases  to  Villeray  to 
investigate  and  report  upon  at  the  end  of  November. 
The  Attorney-General  assigned  as  a  reason  for  the  Coun- 
cil being  unable  to  settle  them,  that  it  did  not  know 
whom  to  address,  and  that  its  sessions  were  limited  to 
certain  days  and  hours.1  The  committee  system,  which 
was  begun  thus  as  a  judicial  expedient,  was  rapidly  ex- 
tended by  the  Council  to  administrative  functions.  It 
entrusted  to  its  individual  members  the  expenditure  of 
funds  voted  by  it.2  It  sent  commissioners  to  the  vessels 
to  ascertain  the  truth  of  their  invoices  and  reports.  It 
sent  commissioners  into  the  shops  to  mark  the  goods 
and  see  that  they  were  sold  at  the  price  marked,  and  to 
see  that  the  bread  was  of  the  proper  weight  and  quality. 
It  despatched  members  to  supervise  the  unloading  of 
merchandise  and  provisions  from  the  King's  ships,  and 
the  subsequent  distribution. 

As  a  judicial  expedient  this  system  was  considered  to 
possess  the  following  advantages :  First,  it  enabled  the 
Council  to  gain  complete  information  without  going 
through  the  preliminary  hearings.  Second,  it  saved  wit- 
nesses time  and  the  parties  involved  expense,  for  the 
commissioner  was  sent  to  the  scene  of  the  crime  or  dis- 
pute, where  by  taking  testimony  he  enabled  the  witnesses 
to  remain  at  their  farming.3  In  the  third  place,  it  en- 

1  Jugements  et  D&lib.,  vol.  i,  p.  42. 

*  In  1665  Damours  accounted  for  10,000  livres  6  sous  6  deniers 
spent  by  him  upon  order  of  the  Council.  Ibid.,  p.  324.  During  the 
same  year  he  was  paid  35  livres  for  inspecting  beaver  skins  and  fixing 
the  price.  Thereafter  he  received  2  sous  per  pound  for  this  service. 
Ibid.,  p.  353- 

3  For  an  interesting  example,  see  ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  39. 


!76       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I76 

abled  the  Council  to  perform  functions  through  its  indi- 
vidual members  that  it  could  not  readily  perform  as  an 
assembly.  Lastly,  it  enabled  the  Council  to  reach  a  tre- 
mendous number  of  decisions  in  their  weekly  sessions. 

The  system  had  counterbalancing  disadvantages,  how- 
ever. In  the  first  place,  objection  was  raised  to  the  rates 
of  15  and  10  livres  a  day  granted  to  the  commissioner 
and  clerk  respectively.  This  objection  loses  force  when 
one  considers  that  such  expenditure  saved  witnesses  and 
litigants  the  payment  of  traveling  expenses  to  Quebec 
and  board  and  lodging  there,  as  well  as  the  damages 
they  might  sustain  by  prolonged  absence  from  their 
business. 

Secondly,  the  system  entrusted  arbitrary  authority  to 
individual  Councillors.1  Fortunately  there  were  compar- 
atively few  cases  of  abuse.  Two  of  these  cases  involved 
Villeray,  that  is,  the  Mareuil  case  in  1694  and  the  case  of 
Jean  Peronne  Dumesnil  in  1663.  The  latter  shows  the 
system  at  its  worst,  for  it  was  here  used  to  attain  an 
unworthy  end.  Dumesnil  had  come  out  to  Canada  as 
the  agent  of  the  "  Hundred  Associates,"  to  investigate 
cases  of  reputed  fraud.  Every  obstacle  had  been  put  in 
his  way.  Before  the  creation  of  the  Sovereign  Council 
he  had  asked  and  been  refused  a  seat  in  the  ancien  con- 
seil.  His  objections  to  the  appointment  of  Villeray  and 

1  For  instance,  when  in  1665  the  officers  of  justice  at  Three  Rivers 
and  Cap  de  la  Magdeleine  quarreled  with  each  other,  connived  at 
breaches  of  conciliar  ordinances  and  maltreated  the  local  judge  who 
sought  to  enforce  the  law,  the  Sovereign  Council  sent  Louis  Peronne, 
Sieur  de  Maze,  to  the  scene  of  the  trouble  as  its  commissioner,  giving 
him  full  powers  to  imprison  there  or  to  send  to  its  prisons  in  Quebec 
those  he  might  be  convinced  were  guilty  of  either  seditious,  threaten- 
ing menaces,  or  dealing  in  liquor  with  the  Indians.  The  commis- 
sioner was  accompanied  by  a  file  of  soldiers  lent  by  Potherie,  the 
acting  Governor.  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  353. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

other  alleged  defrauders  of  his  Company  to  positions  in 
the  new  Council  had  been  ignored,  and  one  of  the  first 
acts  of  the  Sovereign  Council  was  to  depute  Villeray  to 
enter  Dumesnil's  dwelling,  to  take  those  papers  which 
concerned  the  service  of  the  King,  to  enclose  them  in  a 
box  and  give  the  key  to  the  Governor.1  The  commis- 
sion was  violently  executed,  and  Dumesnil  appealed  to 
the  Council  for  justice.  The  appeal  was  referred  to 
Gaudais,  special  agent  of  His  Majesty,  who  suppressed 
it.  A  month  later  the  box  containing  his  papers  was 
produced  in  a  suit  in  which  Dumesnil  required  certain 
documents  as  proof.  The  box  was  unlocked  but  the 
desired  papers  were  not  there.2  If  Dumesnil  spoke  the 
truth  he  had  been  rifled  of  more  than  the  public  papers 
in  his  possession,  and  the  suspicion  rests  upon  the  com- 
missioner, who  had  collected  and  sorted  the  papers. 
Villeray  had  been  under  suspicion  of  defrauding  the 
Company :  its  agent  claimed  to  have  sufficient  evidence 
to  warrant  an  inquiry  by  Mesy  and  the  new  royal  govern- 
ment. Villeray  had  every  incentive 'to  seize  or  destroy 
evidence  which  might  damage  him  or  his  confreres. 
Under  such  conditions  the  appointment  of  Villeray  as 
commissioner  to  make  the  seizure  was  a  very  ques- 
tionable one,  and  the  use  he  probably  made  of  this  office 
would  condemn  the  committee  system  if  this  case  were 
typical.  There  were  other  cases  of  abuse  of  power  by 
commissioners,  but  the  small  proportion  of  them  to  the 
thousands  of  cases  in  which  committee  work  passed  un- 
challenged by  the  parties  concerned,  prove  the  effective- 
ness of  the  system. 

llbid.,  p.  4. 

1 "...  qu'il  a  fait  recherche  dans  ses  papiers  et  qu'il  n'a  trouve  en 
iceux  aucune  quictance  du  diet  Sieur  Bazile,"  etc.    Ibid.,  p.  36. 


!78       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Records 

The  records  of  the  Sovereign  Council  were  kept  with 
increasing  care  as  the  importance  of  their  preservation 
became  better  appreciated.  As  copies  of  the  minutes 
were  constantly  sent  to  the  King,  the  correctness  of  each 
record  was  essential  :  they  served  in  lieu  of  letters  to 
His  Majesty,  who  knew  his  Councillors  through  their 
deeds  thus  recorded.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Gov- 
ernor, Intendant,  First  Councillor,  Attorney  General,  and 
others,  thought  it  important  to  have  their  opinions  spread 
upon  the  minutes,  that  the  King  might  learn  of  their  re- 
spective attitudes  towards  each  important  question. 

The  minutes  were  at  first  written  upon  loose  leaves. 
On  February  8,  1664,  the  Council  ordered  the  clerk  of 
the  court  to  keep  a  minute-book  in  which  the  arr&ts  and 
ordonnances  of  each  session  should  be  written,  and 
signed  by  both  president  and  reporter  (rapporteur). 
These  minutes  were  to  be  transferred  to  a  register,  which 
should  be  signed  by  the  Councillors  every  month.1  The 
minutes  of  each  session  were  duly  signed,  but  the  Attor- 
ney-General reported  on  July  30,  1667,  that  the  records 
on  the  register  had  not  always  been  signed.  A  commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  compare  the  decrees  and  judgments 
in  the  minutes  with  those  in  the  register  and  to  report 
upon  the  accuracy  of  the  unsigned  copies. a 

When  the  system  of  judicial  records  was  fully  devel- 
oped, there  were  no  less  than  six  registers:  (i)  a  record 
of  the  names  of  litigants  ;  (2)  a  record  of  that  part  of  the 
judgment  which  formed  the  judges'  decision,  together 
with  the  pleas  of  the  litigants ;  (3)  a  record  of  the  decree 
in  extenso  with  signature  of  the  Intendant  and  the  bailiffs, 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  15. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  433. 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

deputed  to  execute  it ;  (4)  a  record  of  edicts,  decrees,  and 
declarations  of  the  King,  commissions  of  officers  of  justice, 
and  titles  to  land;  (5)  a  record  of  bequests,  etc. ;  and  (6) 
a  record  of  declarations,  and  affirmations  of  each  litigant. 
All  these  registers  were  verified  and  initialed  by  a  Coun- 
cillor elected  by  the  Council. 

The  value  of  these  records  was  recognized  by  retiring 
officers  of  the  court.  Once  or  twice,  clerks  embarrassed 
proceedings  by  their  reluctance  to  deliver  their  minute 
books  to  their  successors,1  and  Governors  and  Intendants 
on  retiring  from  office  kept  the  originals  of  the  edicts, 
decrees  and  regulations  sent  them  for  registration  and 
promulgation.  To  remedy  this  abuse,  the  King  in  1699 
ordered  that  in  future  these  documents  should  be  filed 
with  the  secretary  of  the  Council.2 

In  1706  it  was  ordered  that  a  catalogue  of  the  docu- 
ments and  registers  of  the  Council  should  be  made.  The 
records  were  again  arranged  and  catalogued  in  1745  at 
the  instance  of  Bigot.3  This  action  received  the  approval 
of  the  King.4  At  the  same  time  he  refused  to  accede 
to  the  proposal  of  Galissonniere  to  establish  a  printing 
office  for  the  publication  of  ordinances,  police  regulations, 
etc.5  Thus,  to  the  end  of  the  French  rule,  copies  of 
minutes  and  all  official  documents  were  made  by  hand. 

From  the  time  of  Frontenac  and  Duchesneau  there 
had  been  trouble  as  to  who  should  have  charge  of  the 
records.  The  clerk  had  for  some  months  lived  with  the 

1  See,  for  example,  ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  287. 

J  Memoir  from  the  King  to  Callieres  and  Champigny  May  27,  1699, 
Collection  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  viii,  pt.  i,  p.  255. 

8  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  223. 

4  Minister  to  Bigot,  April  n,  1749,  supplement  CVwi.  Archives  Report 
for  1899,  p.  159. 

'Minister  to  Jourquiere  May  4,  1749,  ibid. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

Intendant,  who,  according  to  the  Governor,  changed  the 
records  as  he  thought  best.  Although  it  was  evident 
that  the  records  ought  to  be  kept  in  a  place  where  they 
could  not  be  tampered  with,  the  erection  of  an  archives 
building  was  not  proposed  until  1731.  It  was  at  the 
instance  of  Intendant  Hocquart  that  two  contiguous 
chambers  on  the  second  floor  of  the  Palace  of  Justice 
were  in  1735  prepared  to  receive  the  registers  and  public 
documents.1  This  was  the  humble  origin  of  the  present 
handsome  building  that  adorns  the  Canadian  capital. 

All  these  collections  and  catalogues  indicate  unusual 
care  to  preserve  the  records.  Members  of  the  Council 
realized  that  what  went  into  the  record  was  a  lasting 
justification  or  condemnation  of  themselves,  and  there 
were  several  cases  of  expunging  from  the  records.  For 
instance,  when,  in  April,  1664,  Governor  Mesy  became 
temporarily  reconciled  to  certain  members  of  the  Council 
he  erased  parts  of  the  minutes  pertaining  to  his  procla- 
mation of  February  13.*  In  1665  Tracy  had  certain  acts 
which  had  been  registered  during  the  controversy  be- 
tween Mesy  and  Bishop  Laval  expunged  from  the  regis- 
ter.3 Frontenac  erased  damaging  words  and  phrases, 
and  a  scandalous  record  for  which  Talon  was  responsible 
was  erased  with  his  consent.4 

Decrees,  ordinances  and  judgments  were  sealed,  dated 
and  countersigned  by  one  of  the  Councillors,  who  held 

1  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ixiv,  pt.  i. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  170. 

*  Doutre  et  Lareau,  vol.  i,  p.  152. 

4  Talon  proposed  an  investigation  into  scandals  and  disorders  which 
were  alleged  to  have  been  committed  in  assemblies  of  pious  women 
and  gins  convoked  by  Bishop  Laval  under  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Family.  The  Council  acted  upon  the  proposal  and  appointed  an  in- 
vestigating committee.  The  record  was  later  erased  with  Talon's 
consent.  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  384. 


!8i]  METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

the  office  of  Keeper  of  the  Seal.1  In  1663  this  office 
was  created  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Attorney-General. 
At  first  it  was  held  from  month  to  month  by  successive 
Councillors,  but  by  1703  the  tenure  of  the  office  was  made 
permanent.  When  the  King  wished  to  recompense  Du- 
pont  for  his  services  he  gave  him  this  office.2  Later, 
Delino  held  it,  and  in  1733  Sarrazin  was  granted  a  royal 
commission  as  Keeper  of  the  Seals.3 

Promulgation  of  Decrees 

Manuscripts,  thus  signed,  countersigned  and  sealed, 
were  published  by  the  bailiffs  (or  ushers)  of  the  Council 
and  lower  courts  under  the  orders  of  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral. These  officers  were  usually  sent  only  to  the  chief 
settlements,  but  in  1676  and  1681  they  were  obliged  to 
promulgate  royal  edicts  in  the  most  distant  frontier 
communities.  The  Edict  of  Amnesty  of  1681  was  prom- 
ulgated by  an  usher  at  Nipissing,  Sainte-Marie  du  Sault, 
Saint  Ignace,  Lake  Huron,  Saint  Franc.ois-Xavier,  and 
in  the  Bay  des  Puants  (Green  Bay).  He  was  given 
eleven  months  in  which  to  perform  his  task.4  The  At- 
torney-General was  usually  allowed  two  months  in  which 
to  accomplish  the  promulgation  and  receive  satisfactory 
reports  from  bailiffs  and  royal  attorneys.5  Sixty  days 
was  usually  an  ample  allowance  of  time.  A  royal  regu- 
lation, for  example,  was  registered  in  the  Sovereign 
Council  on  March  4,  1675,  was  published  in  Quebec  on 

1"...qui  mettra  son  'visa'  a  cote  avec  la  date  du  jour  et  tnois,  et 
signera."    Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  n. 

*  Minister  to  Dupont,  June  14,  1704,  supplement  Can.  Arch.  Report 
for  1899,  P-  378. 

*  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  101. 
*Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  652,  655. 
5  Ibid.,  pp.   1020-22. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE      ^82 

March  10  by  Bailiff  Roger,  on  March  17  in  Three  Rivers 
by  Bailiff  Aneau,  on  the  same  day  in  Cap  de  Magdeleine 
by  Cusson,  on  March  18  in  Champlain  by  Adhemar,  and 
towards  the  end  of  the  month  at  Montreal  by  Bailiff 
Bailly.1 

Where  promulgation  was  more  widespread  it  was  en- 
trusted to  the  royal  attorneys  of  the  courts  of  Quebec, 
Montreal  and  Three  Rivers,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Attorney-General.  These  officers  sent  their  bailiffs  to 
the  judges  of  seignorial  courts,  or  in  default  of  such 
courts,  to  the  captains  of  the  militia  of  the  districts,  with 
orders  to  read,  publish  and  post  the  transmitted  order.* 
This  process  of  promulgation,  ending  with  the  posting 
of  manuscript  copies  of  edicts,  decrees,  ordinances,  etc. 
in  the  most  frequented  places,  generally  on  the  doors  of 
churches,  was  often  done  to  the  roll  of  the  drum  or  the 
blare  of  the  trumpet  in  order  to  draw  a  crowd.  The 
Attorney-General  was  responsible  for  transmitting  the 
orders  of  the  Government  to  the  public,  so  that  ignorance 
might  not  reasonably  be  offered  as  an  excuse  for  law- 
breaking. 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,   vol.  i,  p.  904. 

'l  One  of  the  most  detailed  orders  for  promulgation  through  the 
agency  of  the  royal  attorneys  (the  Attorney-General's  deputies)  and 
their  bailiffs  is  the  following :  "  Et  que  le  tout  sera  leu,  public  et  af- 
fiche  dans  les  lieux  ordinaires;  et  registre  tant  en  la  Prevoste  de 
cette  Ville,  qu'aux  Sieges  royaux  de  Montreal  et  des  trois  Rivieres 
a  la  dilligence  des  substitusts  du  Procureur  General  du  Roy  qui 
tiendront  la  main,  a  ce  que  lesd.  articles  Soient  executtez  Selon  leur 
forme  et  teneur,  Et  en  envoyeront  des  copes  collationnees  par  les 
Greffiers  aux  juges  des  seigneurs,  Et  ou  il  n'y  aura  point  de  juges, 
aux  Capitaines  de  milice  de  leur  ressort,  pour  estre  pareillement  Leu, 
public  et  affiche  .  .  .  Desquelles  Lectures,  publications  et  affiches  les 
djts  substituts  Seront  tenus  chacun  en  droit  soy  de  faire  certiffier 
au  ledit  Procureur  General  du  Roy  dans  les  delays  ordinaires.  Ibid., 
p.  994- 


METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE 

There  is  but  one  startling  case  in  which  this  official 
did  not  perform  his  duty.  After  the  withdrawal  of  Au- 
teuil,  junior,  in  consequence  of  his  questionable  part  in 
the  Madame  de  la  Forest  affair  of  1706,  the  deputy  At- 
torney-General pushed  forward  a  suit  that  had  hung 
fire  since  1704.  In  doing  this  he  discovered  that  although 
a  decree  of  the  Council  of  State  ordering  seigniors  to 
build  grist  mills  within  one  year  from  the  publication  of 
the  decree  had  been  registered  on  October  21,  1686,  it 
had  never  been  promulgated.  With  the  registration  went 
the  usual  order  to  the  Attorney-General  and  his  deputies 
to  promulgate  the  act  and  to  report  performance  of  the 
duty  within  two  months.1  Such  a  report  could  not  have 
been  avoided  without  the  connivance  of  the  Councillors, 
who  themselves  objected  to  building  grist  mills  on  their 
estates.  Had  the  case  of  Duplessis  vs.  Charest  not  arisen, 
had  a  deputy  Attorney-General  not  brought  this  scandal 
to  light,  the  royal  decree  might  have  been  evaded  for 
an  indefinite  time.  On  December  20,  1706,  the  decree 
was  again  registered  and  ordered  to  be  promulgated.2 

lJugements  et  Dflib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  87. 

1  For    an    admirable    summary   of    this    interesting    case,    see   ibid., 
vol.  v,  pp.  480-488. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

ALTHOUGH  the  division  of  the  powers  of  government 
into  the  legislative,  the  executive,  and  the  judicial  is  as 
old  as  Aristotle,  it  was  not  in  practice  in  the  France  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  where  all  the  powers  were 
gathered  into  the  hands  of  the  monarch.  In  theory  the 
King  made  the  laws,  executed  them  and  was  the  foun- 
tain of  justice.  Though  in  practice  he  shared  the  rou- 
tine work  of  government  with  various  institutions  and 
officials,  nevertheless  he  remained  all  powerful.  Although 
he  might  share  the  legislative  power  with  the  Parlement 
of  Paris,  he  could  bend  it  to  his  will  by  means  of  a  "  lit 
de  justice  "  or  by  banishment  from  Paris.  Although  he 
might  delegate  the  judicial  power  to  this  same  Parlement 
of  Paris  and  other  courts,  he  could  force  his  will  upon 
the  judges  when  the  importance  of  the  case  prompted 
his  interference. 

As  the  King  and  as  the  Parlement  of  Paris  exercised 
the  various  powers  of  government,  so  we  see  the  Gover- 
nor, the  Intendant  and  the  Sovereign  Council  in  Canada 
serving  in  a  judicial  capacity,  in  an  administrative  capacity 
or  in  a  legislative  capacity.  The  King  might  delegate 
more  or  less  power  to  any  one  of  these  agents,  but  he 
did  not  limit  any  one  to  the  exercise  of  one  exclusive 
function.  The  Intendant,  for  example,  was  given  power 
to  issue  ordinances,  to  execute  them  by  means  of  his 
bailiffs  and  the  Provost  of  the  Marechaussee  with  his  six 
184  [184 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  ^5 

archers,  and  to  judge  any  infractions  of  those  ordinances 
and  determine  the  penalty  to  be  paid.  Similarly  the 
Council  performed  the  three  functions  of  government ; 
but  it  is  evident  that  it  could  make  no  claim  to  the  ex- 
clusive exercise  of  any  of  them.  Nevertheless  the  King 
recognized  that  his  executive  representative,  the  Gover- 
nor of  New  France,  should  be  separated  from  the  judi- 
cial department  of  government;  and  eighteenth-century 
Canadians  had  some  idea  of  the  separate  exercise  of 
administrative  and  judicial  powers.1  Their  Soverign 
court,  however,  while  emphasizing  the  business  of  jus- 
tice, passed  detailed  special  acts  that  savored  of  the 
executive,  and  broad  ordinances  that  resembled  statutes. 

Registration 

The  legislative  power  of  the  Council,  which  we  shall 
first  treat,  consisted  in  the  registration  of  royal  measures 
and  in  broad  ordinance  powers.  Concerning  the  func- 
tion of  registration  a  controversy  has  raged  among  schol- 
ars for  some  time,  one  side  maintaining  that  without  this 
process  no  royal  measure  nor  colonial  ordinance  had  the 
force  of  law ;  the  other  that  no  royal  measure  required  such 
action  to  validate  it.  The  question  cannot  be  settled  by 
a  priori  arguments  or  by  analogy  with  the  procedure  of 
the  Parlement  of  Paris  or  other  councils,  but  only  by  the 
evidence  of  Canadian  records.  In  consulting  the  arch- 
ives I  find  that  the  question  is  more  complex  than  either 
side  seems  to  realize,  for  in  some  cases  unregistered 
measures  are  accorded  the  force  of  law,  while  in  others 
registration  and  publication  have  been  necessary. 

During  the  seventeenth  century  French  law  was  codi- 
fied into  five  great  codes.  These  codes  did  not  require 

1  Edits  et  Ordonnances,  vol.  ii,  pp.  333-336. 


!86       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

registration  in  Canada,  but  were  there  accepted  as  law 
from  the  beginning.  Other  royal  measures  for  the  most 
part  did  not  go  into  effect  in  that  colony  unless  regis- 
tered. Registration  was  likewise  necessary  to  validate 
letters  patent  of  nobility,  land  titles,  commissions,  etc. 
It  happened  that  the  measures  which  did  not  require 
registration  were  of  seventeeth-century  origin,  and  that 
those  which  did  are  dated  principally  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  No  single  statement  can  therefore  be  made  con- 
cerning the  whole  period  of  the  Council's  history. 

The  Great  Ordinances 

The  idea  that  the  five  great  ordinances,  which  covered 
reams  of  manuscript,  were  copied  and  posted  in  public 
places  for  the  edification  of  the  reading  public,  is  un- 
reasonable. If  the  attorneys-general,  councillors,  and 
subordinate  judges  had  access  to  them,  that  was  sufficient 
to  ensure  their  being  used  as  the  basis  for  judgments  in 
Canada;  they  became  the  law  of  the  land  without  pro- 
mulgation and  without  the  preparatory  process  of  regis- 
tration. They  did  not  exist  therefore  in  the  Council 
registers  but  as  separate  law  codes. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  civil  code  of  1667  was  registered 
and  that  this  act  of  the  Council  indicates  the  need  of 
legalizing  such  royal  measures  in  Canada.  But  the  truth 
is  that  this  ordinance  never  was  registered  in  extenso. 
Owing  to  the  great  distances  in  New  France  and  the 
poverty  of  the  people,  it  was  found  necessary  to  make 
some  changes  in  the  delays  accorded  to  litigants,  fines, 
etc.  Accordingly  in  1678,  the  King  instructed  Duches- 
neau  to  make  any  needful  changes,  these  amendments 
to  go  into  effect  provisionally  until  the  royal  assent 
should  be  obtained.  Villeray  and  Peiras  were  commis- 
sioned to  revise  it,  and  on  November  7,  1678,  the  final 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

draft  was  agreed  upon.1  Some  of  the  modifications  thus 
adopted  by  the  Sovereign  Council  were  accepted  by  the 
King  and  were  addressed  in  the  form  of  letters  patent 
to  the  Council  for  registration.2  Only  the  amendments, 
which  were  accepted  by  the  King,  were  actually  registered 
on  October  23,  1679,  by  tne  Sovereign  Council  and  sub- 
sequently promulgated.3  The  Council  never  passed  an 
act  to  register  the  civil  ordinance  in  its  original  form  or 
as  amended  but  only  to  register  the  amendments.  "This 
registration  was  without  precedent,"  says  Attorney-Gen- 
eral Auteuil,  "and  was  ordered  that  the  amendments 
might  be  inviolably  followed."4  Publication  of  the  few 
provisions,  which  peculiarly  affected  Canadians,  was  a 
reasonable  matter.  Publication  of  the  whole  civil  ordi- 
nance would  have  been  useless. 

There  are  two  further  reasons  why  registration  and 
publication  of  the  great  French  ordinances  were  regarded 
as  unnecessary :  first,  because  of  their  textual  form ;  sec- 
ond, because  of  their  actual  enforcement  without  such 
preliminaries.  The  opening  clauses  demanded  imme- 
diate enforcement.  While  offering  an  opportunity  for 
amendment,  the  civil  code  stipulated  that  its  provisions 
be  executed  without  interruption.5  The  four  other  codes 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  106-107;  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  262. 

* "  Les  dites  patentes  addresees  en  cette  Cour  pour  estre  registries, 
gardees,"  etc.  Ibid.,  pp.  322-324. 

1  The  amendments  may  be  seen  both  in  ibid.,  p.  322  and  Carres.  Gen., 
June  1679. 

4  Ibid.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  x,  pt.  i,  p.  593. 

5  Civil  Code,  article  vii :  "  N'entendons  toutefois  empecher  que  par  la 
suite   du   temps,   usage  et  experience   aucuns   articles   de   la   presente 
ordonnance  se  trouveroient  contre  1'utilite  ou  commodite  publique  ou 
etre  sujets  a  interpretation,  declaration  ou  moderation,  nos  cours  ne 
puissent  en  tous  terns  nous  representer  ce  qu'elles  jugeront  a  propos 
sans  que  sous  ce  pretexte,  1'execution  en  puisse  etre  sursise."    Edits 
et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  108. 


1 88       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

provided  that  they  should  be  observed  throughout  the 
kingdom  after  a  certain  day.1  The  records  of  the  Coun- 
cil show  that  they  were  known  and  were  in  use.  In 
1712,  for  example,  a  case  arose  in  which  the  plaintiff 
alleged  the  contravention  of  the  Marine  Ordinance  of 
i68i.2  It  was  this  ordinance  which  the  courts  of  admi- 
ralty, erected  in  1717,  were  to  interpret,3  and  according 
to  this  ordinance  the  Superior  Council  was  to  confirm  or 
disavow  the  decisions  of  the  admiralty  courts.4  Even 
without  these  instructions  the  Marine  Ordinance  would 
have  been  the  law  used  in  the  admiralty  courts. 

The  Criminal  Ordinance  of  1670,  although  unregis- 
tered, was  enforced  in  like  manner.  The  Council  not 
only  applied  it  but  several  times  rebuked  the  lower 
courts  for  failure  to  observe  all  its  forms.5  The  Civil 
Ordinance  of  1667  also  played  its  part  long  before  it  was 
amended.  For  example,  when  Frontenac  asserted  that 
he  could  not  be  made  a  party  to  a  suit,  the  Council 
voted  to  ask  the  King  whether  or  not  article  16  of 

1  The  Criminal  Ordinance  is  typical :  "  Voulons  que  la  presente  ordon- 
nance  soit  gardee  et  observee  dans  tout  notre  royaume,  terres  et  pays 
de  notre  obeissance,  a  commencer  au  premier  jour  de  Janvier  de  1'annee 
prochaine  1671 ;  abrogeons  toutes  ordonnances,  etc."  Isambert, 
Recueil  des  Anciennes  Lois  Frang&ises  Depuis  L'an  420,  Jusqu'd  la 
Revolution  de  1789,"  vol.  xviii,  p.  423. 

1 "  Et  speciellement  contre  1'ordonnance  de  la  Marine,  qui  Veut  que 
les  Capitaines  rendent  compte  des  merchandises,  etc."  Jugements  et 
Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  504. 

'/litre  premier:  "II  y  aura  a  1'avenir  dans  tous  les  ports  des  isles  et 
colonies  franchises  en  quelque  partie  du  monde  qu'elles  soient  situees, 
des  juges  pour  connoitre  des  causes  mari  times  .  .  .  et  pour  etre  par 
eux  les  dites  causes  jugees  suivant  1'ordonnance  de  1681,  et  autres  or- 
donnances et  reglements  touchant  la  Marine,"  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i, 
P.  358. 

4  Titre  troisieme,  ibid.,  p.  360. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  823-24,  1069-70. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

chapter  24  of  the  ordinance  of  1667,  which  forbade  any 
president  from  presiding  in  any  suit  in  which  he  was 
challenged,  should  apply  to  his  Lieutenant- Governor  of 
New  France.1 

If  one  turns  from  the  great  codes  to  less  general  laws 
he  sees  that  registration  was  really  a  necessary  legislative 
act.  To  be  sure  certain  old  laws  were  enforced  and 
were  only  treated  to  a  belated  registration  and  promul- 
gation in  order  that  the  people  might  know  their  provi- 
sions ; 2  but  as  a  rule  the  royal  edicts  and  declarations 
were  not  enforced  in  Canada  unless  registered  upon  the 
King's  order  in  the  Sovereign  Council  of  Quebec.  One 
act  was  not  enforced  until  its  registration  thirteen  years 
after  its  passage ;  another  providing  that  the  King  get 
cargoes  of  vessels  cast  away  upon  his  coasts  was  ignored 
until  at  his  command  it  was  registered  twenty-one  years 
after  passage.3  The  Canadians  themselves  were  quick  to 
recognize  the  advantages  of  having  some  share  in  law- 
making.  For  example,  when  protesting  against  taxation 
by  Governor  and  Intendant,  the  inhabitants  held  that  the 
only  legal  way  to  tax  them  consisted  of  a  royal  order 
duly  registered  in  the  Council,  "  since  His  Majesty,"  they 
explained,  "  wishes  that  this  be  done  concerning  his 
Edicts  and  Declarations." 4  Delino,  having  pointed  out 
a  fault  in  the  ordinance  of  1669,  was  answered  that  it 
was  not  followed  in  Canada  for  two  reasons:  i)  because 
it  was  not  sent  out  and  registered  there,  and  2)  because 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  843. 

*  A  law  of  Henry  II  which  provided  the  death  penalty  for  women  who 
concealed  their  pregnancy  and  were  guilty  of  abortion  was  registered 
and  published  at  the  request  of  Talon.    Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series 
F  iii,  vol.  xiii,  p.  345. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  522. 

4  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  xiv,  p.  12. 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

the  ordinance  of  1667  as  amended  in  1678  had  superseded 
it.1 

Royal  and  Canadian  Acts  and  Titles 

As  to  regulations  and  ordinances,  made  in  Canada, 
registration  was  necessary  to  their  validity.  In  1706  the 
Attorney-General  set  aside  a  so-called  regulation  of 
August  23,  1667,  upon  which  one  party  to  a  suit  relied, 
in  favor  of  a  regulation  of  September  4,  1667,  because 
the  latter  alone  had  been  duly  signed,  registered  and 
executed.  The  King  supported  this  opinion,  writing 
that  no  reliance  could  be  placed  in  the  alleged  regulation 
of  August  23,  1667,  because  it  was  not  presented  in  an 
authentic  form,  being  only  a  copy  of  a  copy,  and  since 
it  was  not  registered  in  the  office  of  the  Recorder  of  the 
Sovereign  Council.2  Canadians  knew  the  value  of  the 
process.  For  example,  certain  regulations  had  been 
made  by  those  inhabitants,  who  proposed  to  enter  the 
"  Cie  de  la  Colonie."  These  were  confirmed  by  the 
Council  of  State  on  October  15,  1700;  but  their  regis- 
tration was  also  sought  from  the  Sovereign  Council. 
The  urgent  desire  of  the  Ursulines  of  the  convent  of 
Three  Rivers  that  their  property  be  assured  by  the  record 
of  their  letters  patent  was  only  typical  of  the  eagerness 
with  which  holders  of  commissions,  land  deeds,  and  letters 
of  naturalization  sought  their  registration.  How  else 
could  a  man's  title  to  land  and  nobility  be  assured?3 

1 "  Reponce — L'Ordonnance  de  mois  d'aoust  1669  n'est  point  suivie 
en  ce  pays  par  deux  raisons:  La  \er  par  ce  qu'elle  n'y  a  point  este 
envoyee  n'y  registree,  etc."  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  595. 

1  Ibid.,  abstract  in  Supplement  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1899, 
pp.  198,  199. 

'There  were  privileges  attached  to  a  clear  title.  In  1732  it  was  speci- 
fied that  only  those  whose  titles  of  nobility  were  or  should  be  recorded 
in  the  Council,  or  should  immediately  give  evidence  of  nobility,  should 
be  allowed  to  plead  in  the  Council  wearing  their  swords.  Coll.  Moreau 
St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  xii,  p.  12. 


I9I]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  jgi 

Royal  View  of  Registration 

The  King  of  France  knew  the  efficacy  of  registration. 
It  was  because  he  recognized  that  a  registered  measure 
would  be  enforced,  and  a  registered  title  would  ensure  pos- 
session, that  he  ordered  extreme  care  in  exercising  the 
function.  Perhaps  the  Council  had  not  scrutinized  letters 
of  nobility,  commissions,  etc.,  sufficiently  before  thus 
legalizing  them.  Whatever  the  reasons,  the  king  issued 
two  letters  in  1744  and  1746,  the  first  of  which  runs  as 
follows : 

"  M.  the  Marquis  de  Beauharnois  and  M.  Hochquart, 
although  I  have  already  explained  what  you  ought  to 
observe  regarding  registration  in  my  Sovereign  Council 
of  New  France  of  my  edicts,  etc.,  I  write  this  letter 
to  warn  you  to  take  care,  that  no  edicts,  decrees,  and 
ordinances,  other  than  those  which  are  addressed  to  you 
by  my  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Department  of  the 
Marine,  shall  be  registered,  nor  pardons,  commissions, 
letters  of  nobility  and  naturalization  bearing  my  seal  or 
that  of  my  Council  of  State,  until  my  Secretary  of  State 
has  notified  you  that  you  may  proceed  with  the  registra- 
tion." '  Two  years  later  the  king  addressed  the  Superior 
Council  in  a  similar  letter.2  The  Council  should  wait 
for  special  authorization  to  register,  for  such  registration 
meant  validation  of  the  act  recorded.  We  may  infer  the 
converse  :  that  no  unregistered  act  was  legal  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century  in  Canada.  If  this  be  true,  registration 
by  the  Superior  Council  was  a  necessary  process.  When 
applied  to  edicts,  declarations,  decrees,  and  ordinances, 
it  put  them  into  effect ;  it  made  them  the  law  of  the  land 
to  be  interpreted  in  the  courts ;  it  was  a  legislative  func- 
tion. 

1  Edits  el  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  224.  f  Ibid.,  p.  588. 


I92 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 


In  conclusion  there  are  three  points  to  remember 
about  registration  by  the  Council:  (i)  It  was  unneces- 
sary in  the  case  of  the  ordinances  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  while  essential  for  other  acts  royal  and  provin- 
cial. The  former  were  elaborate  and  incomprehensible 
to  the  people  at  large,  fit  only  to  be  interpreted  by  men 
of  legal  training.  It  would  have  been  useless  to  post 
them  on  the  parish  church  doors.  On  the  other  hand, 
specific  prohibitions  or  other  acts  comprehensible  to  all, 
and  requiring  the  highest  degree  of  publicity,  needed  to 
be  recorded  in  the  Council  register  and  published 
throughout  the  country.  Common  sense  determined 
that  the  great  laws  should  not  receive  the  same  registra- 
tion and  promulgation  that  simple  laws,  titles,  commis- 
sions, etc.,  required.  (2)  When,  however,  the  body  of 
Canadian  law  had  been  formed  by  seventeenth-century 
royal  edicts  and  ordinances,  and  no  more  elaborate  codes 
were  formed,  registration  and  promulgation  became  the 
rule  for  all  measures  —  from  admiralty  courts  to  letters 
of  naturalization.  The  old  measures  continued  to  be 
executed  without  registration,  while  the  new  ones  appear 
to  have  required  it  to  make  them  the  law  of  Canada. 
(3)  If  these  conclusions  be  true,  and  the  absolute  need 
of  conciliar  action  to  validate  a  measure  be  once  estab- 
lished for  the  eighteenth  century,  the  importance  of  the 
Council  as  a  legislative  body  is  apparent.  I  believe  that 
in  this  one  particular  the  eighteenth-century  Superior 
Council  was  more  powerful  than  the  seventeenth-cen- 
tury Sovereign  Council. 

Administrative  Power 

Still  registration  of  royal  acts  was  only  the  shadow  of 
a  legislative  power.  Although  Councillors  went  through 
the  formality  of  deliberating  upon  the  legality  and  expe- 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

diency  of  the  measures  to  be  registered,  they  invariably 
ordered  registration.  Holding  office  during  the  King's 
pleasure,  they  could  not  do  otherwise.  Yet  the  Council 
possessed  more  substantial  powers,  that  gave  it  wide 
scope  for  legislative  and  administrative  action.  The 
Edict  of  Establishment  enumerated  five  such  powers: 
In  the  first  place  it  authorized  the  Council  to  expend 
the  public  funds.  In  the  second  place  it  had  the  right 
to  regulate  the  fur  trade  with  the  Indians.  Thirdly,  it 
might  regulate  the  trade  between  the  inhabitants  of 
Canada  and  French  merchants.  Fourthly,  it  was  em- 
powered to  make  general  and  special  police  measures 
for  the  whole  country.  Finally,  it  was  authorized  to 
create  courts  of  justice  in  Quebec,  Montreal,  Three 
Rivers,  or  whatever  other  place  it  might  choose,  and  to 
appoint  the  necessary  judges,  clerks,  bailiffs,  notaries, 
etc.1  All  of  these  powers  were  exercised  by  the  Council 
during  the  first  years  of  its  existence.  Most  of  them 
were  later  transferred  to  the  Intendant,  quite  in  accord- 
ance with  the  contemporary  centralizing  tendency  in 
France. 

It  is  our  purpose  to  trace   this   process.     We   must 

1 "  Voulons,  entendons  et  nous  plait,  que  dans  le  dit  Conseil,  il  soit 
ordonne  de  la  depense  des  deniers  publics,  et  disposer  de  la  traite  des 
pelleries  avec  les  sauvages,  ensemble  de  tout  le  trafic  que  les  habitants 
pourront  faire  avec  les  Marchands  de  ce  Royaume;  meme  qu'il  y  soit 
regie  de  toutes  les  affaires  de  Police,  publiques  et  particulieres  de  tout 
le  pays,  au  lieu,  jour  et  heure  qui  seront  designes  a  cet  effet:  en  outre 
donnons  pouvoir  au  dit  Conseil  de  commettre  a  Quebec,  a  Montreal, 
aux  Trois  Rivieres,  et  en  tous  autres  lieux,  au  terns  et  en  la  maniere 
qu'ils  jugeront  necessaire,  des  personnes  qui  jugent  en  premiere  in- 
stance, sans  chicane  et  longueur  de  procedures,  des  differents  proces, 
qui  y  pourront  survenir  entre  les  particuliers ;  de  nommer  les  Greffiers, 
Notaires,  Tabellions,  sergents,  autres  officiers  de  Justice  qu'ils  jugeront 
a  propos,  notre  desir  etant  d'oter  autant  qu'il  le  pourra  toute  chicane 
dans  le  dit  pays  de  la  Nouvelle  France  afin  que  prompte  et  breve  justice 
y  soit  rendue." 


I94       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [194 

turn  from  the  Edict  of  Establishment,  which  granted 
power  to  the  Council,  to  commissions,  instructions  and 
royal  legislation,  which  took  it  away,  resumed  it  or 
granted  it  elsewhere.  All  these  acts  mark  the  changing 
constitution  of  the  Council.  The  alteration  of  name 
from  Sovereign  to  Superior  Council  is  simply  indicative 
of  the  real  constitutional  position  to  which  that  institution 
was  rapidly  sinking. 

I.  The  power  to  order  how  the  public  funds  should  be 
expended  was  never  expressly  abrogated  but  fell  into 
disuse.  By  "  public  funds  "  the  Edict  of  Establishment 
meant  the  tax  of  one-fourth  the  beaver  skins  and  one- 
tenth  the  Canadian  elk  skins,  the  revenue  derived  from 
leasing  out  the  trade  of  Tadoussac,  and  a  ten  per  cent 
import  duty  on  merchandise.  The  first  two  sources  of 
income  had  been  leased  in  1648  for  an  annual  sum  of 
35,000  livres.  Subsequently  the  sum  granted  the  gov- 
ernment had  been  larger.  In  1664-65  the  Council  had 
had  the  expenditure  of  46,500  livres  from  this  source, 
besides  30,000  to  40,000  livres  sent  out  by  the  King.1 
It  had  determined  what  sum  should  be  granted  to  the 
Governor  for  himself  and  bodyguard ;  it  had  voted  sums 
of  money  to  pay  government  debts,  and  had  even  de- 
puted the  Governor  and  Bishop  to  superintend  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  stores  sent  out  by  the  King. 

The  Council  had  less  discretion  in  determining  how 
the  duties  on  merchandise  should  be  spent.  In  1660 
Canadians  had  guaranteed  to  pay  the  expenses  of  gov- 
ernment. They  had  fallen  into  debt.  French  and  Ca- 
nadian creditors  insisted  upon  payment.  Therefore,  the 
10  per  cent  import  duty  on  merchandise  had  been  laid  to 

1  Talon  to  the  minister,  November  13,  1666. 


I95]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  195 

liquidate  this  debt.1  To  this  purpose  the  Council  assigned 
the  duties;  and,  when  the  people  complained  in  1670,  it 
shifted  the  10  per  cent  ad  valorem  tax  upon  merchandise 
to  a  specific  duty  of  10  livres  per  cask  on  wine,  25  livres 
per  cask  on  brandy  and  5  sous  per  pound  on  tobacco. 

In  1674,  the  Council's  connection  with  import  taxes 
ceased,  when  the  King  took  over  the  whole  debt.2  Vil- 
leray  and  others  who  had  collected  the  duties  under 
authority  of  the  Council,  were  ordered  to  give  account 
to  the  Intendant  of  receipts  and  expenditures  and  to  turn 
the  balance  over  to  Bazir,  the  farmer  of  the  peltries,  for 
advances  to  the  Government.3  This  concluded  the  Coun- 
cil's connection  with  the  import  tax. 

In  1665  Talon  arrived,  bearing  a  commission  authoriz- 
ing him  to  direct  the  management  and  distribution  of 
the  royal  funds.4  Later  commissions  provided  that  the 
Intendant  should  have  charge  also  of  the  distribution  of 
the  revenues  raised  from  the  sources  we  have  been  de- 
scribing.5 These  grants  of  power  do  not  in  theory  con- 
flict vvith  the  right  of  the  Council  to  determine  how  the 
public  funds  were  to  be  spent.6  The  Intendant  was  to 
execute  what  the  Council  ordered.  But  in  practice,  the 
Intendant  absorbed  the  Council's  power.  Even  the  10 
per  cent  duties,  which  the  Council  had  set  apart  for  the 
liquidation  of  the  public  debt,  were  diverted  by  Talon  to 

1  For  an  excellent  account  of  income  and  expenditure  in  seventeenth 
century  Canada,  see  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  Intendant,  chap.  xii. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  264. 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  ii,  p.  759. 

*  "  Voulons  aussi  que  vous  ayez  la  direction  du  maniement  et  distri- 
bution de  nos  deniers." 

4  "  Voulant  de  plus  que  vous  connaissez  de  la  distribution  des  deniers 
provenus  de  la  levee  des  dits  Droits." 

8 "...  dans  le  dit  Conseil  il  soit  ordonne  de  la  depense  des  deniers 
publics." 


I96       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE 

pay  government  expenses.  In  1666,  Talon  wrote  to  the 
minister:  "  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  employ  the  same 
sum  from  the  product  of  the  "  farm  "  (that  is,  beaver  and 
elk  tax,  and  trade  of  Tadoussac),  which  the  Council  em- 
ployed during  the  preceding  years,  as  well  for  paying 
salaries  aud  indispensable  debts  of  the  country  as  for 
other  expenses  contracted  in  the  service  of  the  King  and 
for  the  preservation  of  the  colony.  I  have  even  been 
obliged  to  employ  for  this  purpose  whatever  revenues 
have  accrued  from  the  10  per  cent  duties." 

Not  only  did  the  Intendant  assume  the  management 
of  the  ordinary  fund,  but  he  also  administered  the  extra- 
ordinary fund  which  consisted  of  the  comparatively  large 
sums  sent  out  to  Canada  by  the  King.  Had  the  Council 
continued  to  determine  how  these  sums  should  be  spent, 
and  been  able  to  resist  the  temptation  to  corruption 
offered  by  the  disposal  of  them,  the  history  of  Canada 
might  have  been  different.  In  1865-66  the  Intendant 
disposed  of  358,000  livres.2  In  the  eighteenth  century 
the  colony  cost  the  King  about  a  million  a  year.  From 
the  beginning  of  the  war  the  Intendant  administered 
about  6,000,000  in  1755  and  11,000,000  in  1756.  In  1757 
the  expenditure  reached  the  staggering  sum  of  19,000,000* 
only  to  increase  in  1758  to  24,000,000  and  in  1759  to 
36,ooo,ooo.3 

II.  The  Edict  of  Establishment  deprived  the  Governor 
of  the  right  to  regulate  trade  with  the  Indians  and  gran- 
ted it  to  the  Sovereign  Council.4  To  ordain  concerning, 

1  Talon  to  the  minister  November  1666.    Corres.  Gen.,  vol.  ii. 

1  Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  Intendant,  chap.  xii. 

1  From  1755  to  1760  the  government  expended  104,000,000  for  Canada. 
Coll.  de  Man.  de  NOHV.  Fr.,  vol.  iv,  p.  226,  Montcalm  to  the  minister, 
April  12,  1759.  See  also,  Beaudouin  de  Guemadeuc,  L'Espion  devalise, 
p.  128. 

4  "...  disposer  de  la  traite  des  pelleries  avec  les  sauvages." 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

or  dispose  of,  the  trade  in  peltries  with  the  Indians  meant 
(i)  awarding  the  lease  for  the  farm  of  Tadoussac  and  for 
the  collection  of  the  duties  on  peltries;  (2)  attempting  to 
keep  the  traffic  in  the  towns  by  measures  against  those 
who  went  to  the  Indian  villages,  and  (3)  regulating  the 
nature  of  the  commodities  traded  for  Indian  furs.  The 
first  function  was  exercised  once.1  Then  the  Company 
of  the  West  Indies  assumed  it,  and  after  1674  it  was 
taken  over  by  the  King.  The  second  duty  involved  the 
determination  of  the  government's  policy  towards  the 
coureurs  de  bois.  Here  the  Council's  power  was  cut  in 
upon  by  royal  action.  The  King  granted  the  Governor 
the  right  to  issue  annually  twenty-five  licenses  to  traders 
to  go  to  the  Indian  villages,  or  he  ordained  that  the 
trade  should  be  open  to  every  one.*  Furthermore,  in 
1676,  he  authorized  the  Inlendant  to  render  decrees 
against  intractable  coureurs  de  bois  by  virtue  of  his 
jurisdiction  over  causes  involving  farming  of  the  furs.3 
Duchesneau,  however,  did  not  make  use  of  this  authori- 
zation, but  encouraged  the  Council  to  prosecute  the 
coureurs  de  bois  vigorously.  Whenever  the  Governor 
was  granted  the  disposal  of  the  trading  licenses,  he 
naturally  assumed  the  responsibility  of  keeping  persons 
who  did  not  hold  such  licenses  in  the  towns.  He  gov- 
erned the  Montreal  fair.  Still  the  Council  occasionally 
exercised  its  unabrogated  power  of  regulating  the  trade 
with  the  Indians,  enacting  as  late  as  January,  1707,  an 
ordinance  forbidding  all  traders  to  traffic  with  the 
Indians  except  in  Quebec,  Montreal  and  Three  Rivers. 

1  In  1665  the  duties  and  the  farm  of  Tadoussac  were  leased  by  the 
Council  to  Aubert  de  la  Chesnaye,  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  9-12. 

1  The  history  of  the  uncertain  policy  of  the  Crown  between  the 
years  1675  and  1696  is  well  told  in  Lorin,  Comte  de  Frontenac,  pt.  i, 
chap,  vii  and  pt.  iii,  chap.  v. 

» Ibid.,  p.  175- 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [I9g 

The  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  liquor  should  be 
given  to  the  Indians  in  exchange  for  peltries  remained 
with  the  Sovereign  Council  during  the  first  decade  of  its 
history.  Thereafter  the  policy  was  determined  by  His 
Majesty.  When  the  Council  had  no  right  to  decide  who 
should  trade  with  the  Indians,  who  should  have  the  farm 
of  Tadoussac,  or  what  should  be  the  goods  (wet  or  dry) 
to  be  given  for  skins,  its  constitutional  power  to  "  dis- 
poser de  la  traite  des  pelleries  avec  les  sauvages"  was 
merely  a  dead  letter. 

III.  Furthermore,  the  Council  was  granted  the  right 
to  regulate  commercial  relations  between  Canadians  and 
French    merchants.1      It    was    under    authority    of    this 
clause  that  the  Council  regulated  the  import  duties,  the 
rate  at  which  French  money  should  pass  in  New  France, 
the  amount  of   profits  which  foreign  merchants  might 
make,  the  time  during  which  they  might  do  business  in 
Quebec   and   Montreal,  the  rate  at  which  merchandise 
should  be  carried  overseas,  etc. 

IV.  A  power  closely  connected  with  the  above  was 
the  regulation  of  internal  commerce  and  the  preservation 
of  good  order,  public  health  and   safety.     These  were 
among  the  police  functions  authorized  by  the  Council's 
charter.*     The   power   to   make   police   ordinances   was 
never  formally  abrogated,  but  the  position  of  the  Council 
was  undermined  by  the  grant  of  wide  police  powers  to 
the  Intendant.     It  was  only  gradually,  however,  that  the 
Intendant   assumed   the  exercise  of  the   powers  of  his 
commission.     By  it  he  was  authorized  to  make  all  regu- 

1 "  . . .  de  disposer . . .  ensemble  de  tout  le  trafic  que  les  habitants 
pourront  faire  avec  les  marchands  de  ce  Royaume." 

1 "...  meme  qu'il  y  soit  regie  de  toutes  les  affaires  de  Police,  publiques 
et  particulieres  de  tout  le  pays,  au  lieu,  jour  et  heure  qui  seront 
designes  a  cet  effet  .  .  ." 


I99J  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

lations  he  might  deem  necessary  for  the  general  police 
of  the  country,  acting  in  conjunction  with  the  Sovereign 
Council  if  possible,  but  without  that  body  if  the  case 
demanded  expeditious  treatment.1  Under  authority  of 
this  clause  Intendant  Meulles  issued  an  ordinance  on 
August  22,  1664,  annulling  that  of  the  Council  made  six 
days  before  during  his  absence.  The  King  sustained  the 
Intendant,  validated  his  ordinance  and  annulled  that  of 
the  Council.  Begon  went  beyond  Meulles.  He  claimed 
that  the  ordinary  procedure  was  for  him  to  make  police 
ordinances  alone,  the  extraordinary  method  to  make 
them,  with  the  Council.  He  was  to  enact  them  with 
the  Council  only  when  he  chose,  that  is,  in  exceptional 
cases.2  No  remonstrance  was  made  by  the  Council  to 
this  interpretation,  more  especially  as  the  Intendant 
chose  soon  afterwards  to  work  with  that  body  in  form- 
ing the  necessary  regulations. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  Intendant  aimed  to 
gain  the  support  of  the  Council  to  his  measures.  As  its 
president,  he  could  get  his  measures  incorporated  as 
conciliar  ordinances.  He  therefore  made  very  few  ordi- 
nances alone.  Thus  were  Talon's  great  ordinances  adop- 
ted by  the  Council  on  January  24,  1667.  In  this  way 
regulations  were  made  in  1676,  which  formed  the  back- 
bone of  Canadian  police  law  until  the  conquest.3  At  a 
later  date,  Duchesneau  was  careful  to  inform  the  Coun- 
cil that  it  was  enacting  a  regulation,  not  simply  register- 
ing a  measure  previously  decided  upon  by  Governor 
and  Intendant.  He  intimated  that  he  had  refrained  from 

1  "  In  case  you  deem  it  necessary  for  the  good  of  our  service,  either 
by  the  difficulty  or  delay  of  making  police  regulations  with  the  Council, 
you  may  make  them  alone."  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  iii,  p.  50. 

8  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  804  et  seq. 

*  Cugnet,  Loix  de  Police. 


200       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2oo 

previous  consultation  with  the  Governor  in  order  that 
the  Council  might  really  participate  in  determining  the 
measure.1  But  the  framing  of  a  measure  by  Governor 
and  Intendant  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Council  became 
rather  a  common  practice  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  attitude  of  the  French  government  was  respon- 
sible for  this  assumption  of  power  by  Governor  and  In- 
tendant. Jealousy  of  the  colonial  Governor  had  disap- 
peared since  the  days  when  Frontenac  had  been  prevented 
from  encroaching  upon  the  ordinance-making  power  of 
the  Council.  At  that  time  the  home  government  had 
been  anxious  to  assure  the  exercise  of  the  power  to 
the  Council.  When  in  1673  the  Governor  had  made  po- 
lice ordinances  upon  his  sole  responsibility,  Colbert  had 
written :  "  His  Majesty  orders  me  to  tell  you  that  you 
have,  in  that  particular,  gone  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
power  given  you,  inasmuch  as  police  regulations  ought 
to  be  made  by  the  Sovereign  Council,  over  which  you 
preside,  rather  than  by  yourself  alone  .  .  .  You  have  sole 
command  of  the  armies,  but  in  regard  to  all  that  concerns 
justice,  what  authority  you  have  consists  in  your  presi- 
dency of  the  Sovereign  Council,  established  in  that 
country  by  his  Majesty.  Furthermore,  his  intention  is 
that  you  have  matters  of  police  discussed  and  examined 
in  the  said  Council,  where  you  will  take  the  opinions  of 
those  who  constitute  it ;  in  order  that  it  may  be  the  Coun- 
cil, which  shall  pronounce  on  all  matters  concerning  the 
police.  His  Majesty  thinks  this  course  not  only  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  power  granted  you,  but  also  absolutely 
necessary  to  raise  the  spirits  of  those  who  compose  the 
Sovereign  Council."  2 

During  the  next  forty  years  the  French  government 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  752. 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mcry,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  i,  p.  385. 


201]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  2OI 

ceased  to  insist  upon  even  the  participation  of  the  Gov- 
ernor.1 The  Intendant  however  was  to  be  present  when 
police  ordinances  were  made,  but  the  Governor's  presence 
was  merely  desirable.  In  March  1685,  the  King  ruled 
that  the  ordinance  made  by  the  Council  in  the  absence 
of  these  officials  was  invalid.  In  1710  the  commission 
of  the  Intendant  contained  several  additional  powers, 
and  thenceforth,  it  appears  that  the  King  intended  to 
deprive  the  Council  of  its  administrative  functions.  On 
May  14,  1726,  the  minister  wrote  that  the  Council  ought 
not  to  mix  directly  or  indirectly  in  what  concerned  the 
government.  His  Majesty  had  delegated  to  his  Council 
a  part  of  his  authority,  to  render  justice  to  his  subjects ; 
wherefore  those  that  constituted  that  tribunal  ought  to 
apply  themselves  exclusively  to  their  judicial  functions.2 
In  a  letter  written  three  years  later  the  minister  shows 
that  he  considered  the  Superior  Council  to  be  no  longer 
a  coordinate  part  of  the  government,  but  merely  the 
ward  of  the  Intendant.  As  supervisor  of  justice,  the 
latter  was  instructed  among  other  things  to  prevent  offi- 
cers of  justice  from  using  their  position  to  avoid  paying 
their  debts,  and  to  stop  them  from  preying  upon  their 
neighbors.  The  general  police  power  was  explicitly 
granted  to  the  governor  and  Intendant,  and  the  Superior 
Council  was  mentioned  only  to  repeat  the  warning  against 
its  mixing  either  directly  or  indirectly  in  what  concerned 
the  government.3 

1  For  example,  the  King  wrote  Callieres  that  the  Intendant  and  the 
Sovereign  Council  ought  to  work  together  with  great  application  at 
everything  that  concerned  the  police,  which,  he  said,  was  the  most 
solid  basis  of  new  colonies.  Coll.  de  Man.  de  Nouv.  Fr.,  vol.  ii,  p.  326. 

1 "...  en  faire  toute  leur  attention."  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series 
F  iii,  vol.  xii,  p.  61. 

1 "  Ce  Conseil  ne  doit  se  mesler  ni  directement  ou  indirectement  de  ce 
qui  regarde  le  Gouvernement."  Ibid.,  vol.  xi,  p.  320,  et  seq. 


202       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2Q2 

The  eviction  of  the  Council  from  the  field  of  adminis- 
tration naturally  left  Governor  and  Intendant  either  as 
rivals  or  as  allies.  Dupuy  and  Beauharnais  were  the 
former,  their  successors  the  latter.  The  French  govern- 
ment no  longer  feared  the  power  of  the  Canadian  Gov- 
ernor. It  consented  when  Governor  and  Intendant 
jointly  constructed  police  regulations.  It  even  went  so 
far  as  to  confirm  an  ordinance  made  in  1750  by  Governor 
Jonquiere  and  Intendant  Bigot,  levying  a  tax  upon  the 
citizens  of  Quebec  for  the  maintenance  of  barracks  in 
that  town.1 

The  ordinance  power  of  the  Council  was  thus  under- 
mined by  the  power  given  to  the  Intendant  and  by  the 
attitude  of  the  home  government.  The  activity  of  the 
Council  as  an  ordinance-making  body  did  not  long  sur- 
vive the  opening  of  the  seventeenth  century,  while  its 
most  lasting  work  in  that  line  was  done  in  1676. 

V.  The  fifth  administrative  power  granted  to  the  Sover- 
eign Council  by  the  Edict  of  Establishment  implied  the 
right  to  erect  courts,  by  authorizing  as  it  did  the  appoint- 
ment of  judges  by  the  Council.  These  judges  might  be  ap- 
pointed to  hold  courts  of  first  instance  in  Quebec,  Montreal, 
Three  Rivers  or  any  other  places  where  the  Council  might 
see  the  necessity  for  such  courts.  The  Council  was,  further- 
more, to  appoint  all  clerks,  bailiffs,  notaries,  etc.,  for  these 
new  courts.  The  Council  immediately  created  royal  juris- 
dictions at  Montreal  and  Three  Rivers.  Then  followed  the 
transfer  of  the  country  to  the  Company  of  the  West  Indies. 
To  it  was  also  delegated  this  power;  and,  under  authority 
of  such  a  grant,  the  provost  court  of  Quebec  was  erected  in 
1666.  When  Canada  reverted  to  the  King,  the  Intendant 
was  given  the  right  to  name  the  judges  in  places  where  the 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mary,  series  vol.  xiv,  p.  8. 


203]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  203 

Company  of  the  Indies  had  not  established  them.1  The  In- 
tendant  accordingly  appointed  three  officers  for  the  royal 
court  of  Three  Rivers.2  In  1680  the  Intendant  was  given 
the  power  to  appoint  various  inferior  officials  about  the 
courts,3  and  the  appointment  of  the  more  important  ones 
was  reserved  to  the  King.  No  man  was  to  be  considered  a 
bona-fide  judge  without  a  royal  commission.  Thus,  very 
early  in  its  history,  the  Council  lost  its  power  of  creating 
courts  and  nominating  their  officials. 

Derived  from  the  charter  power  of  appointment,  but 
even  more  from  the  Council's  position  as  head  of  the  hier- 
archy of  courts,  was  the  right  to  supervise  the  lower  courts 
and  regulate  their  procedure.  In  1664,  the  Council  for- 
bade the  inferior  judges  and  attorneys  throughout  the 
country  from  asking  fees,  threatening  to  give  their  places 
to  those  who  exposed  them.4  In  1714,  in  1715,  and  again 
in  1748,  the  Council  outlined  the  procedure  of  the  lower 
courts  in  regard  to  appeals,  in  accordance  with  the  criminal 
ordinance  of  1670. 5  In  1747,  in  order  to  determine  that 
the  ordinance  of  Henry  II  had  been  made  known  to  the 
offenders  before  the  commission  of  their  crime,  the  Coun- 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  72. 

"Chapais,  Jean  Talon,  Intendant,  p.  441. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  v,  p.  5. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  297. 

5  The  Ordinance  of  1670  provided  that  sentences  pronounced  by  the 
court  should  be  executed  on  the  same  day.    The   Council,  however, 
pointed  out  that  the  same  ordinance  "  y  a  prevu  par  1'article  six  du 
titre  des  appellations  qui  porte  que  si  le  sentence  rendue  par  le  juge 
des  lieux  porte  condemnation  de  peine  corporalle,  de  galeres,  de  banis- 
sement  a  perpetuite  ou  d'amende  honorable,  soit  qu'il  y  en  ait  appel 
ou  non  a  1'accuse  et  son  proces  seront  envoies  surement  aux  cours 
superieures."    Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  ix,  pt.  ii,  p. 
474;  ibid.,  vol.  xiii,  pp.  431-432. 


204       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [204 

cil  ordered  that  a  statement  of  the  last  publication  of  the 
ordinance  should  be  attached  to  each  judgment  meted  out.1 
Moreover,  there  are  interesting  examples  of  regulation 
in  specific  cases.  For  example,  the  Council  stipulated  that 
the  Seminary  of  Quebec,  seignior  of  Chateau-Richer, 
should  provide  for  court  sessions  to  be  held  there  regularly 
each  fortnight,  in  a  definite  and  advertised  place,  with  a 
capable  secretary  living  and  keeping  the  records  in  the 
place,  and  that  no  judgments  should  be  given  elsewhere.2 
While  correcting  mistakes  in  procedure  made  in  the  lower 
courts,  the  Council  sometimes  extended  its  condemnation  to 
the  court  officers.  In  1712,  the  judge  of  the  royal  court 
of  Three  Rivers  was  condemned  to  pay  the  expenses  of  a 
case,  which,  although  not  within  his  jurisdiction,  he  had 
judged.3  In  1729,  several  unjust  practices  in  the  provost 
court  of  Quebec  were  condemned  by  the  Council,  and  the 
judge  and  prosecuting  attorney  were  fined  respectively  two- 
thirds  and  one-third  of  the  costs  of  suits  tried  by  such 
procedure,  as  well  as  the  costs  of  appeal  to  the  Superior 
Council.4  Again,  in  1740,  the  Council  forbade  this  local 
judge  to  proceed  with  the  investigation  of  civil  causes  based 
upon  "  frivolous  "  or  unsupported  evidence.  The  failure 
of  some  of  the  judges  of  the  lower  courts,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  eighteenth  century,  to  follow  the  forms  of  pro- 
cedure laid  down  in  the  ordinances,  thus  invited  the  inter- 
ference of  the  Council.6 

1  "  .  .  .  ordonne  aussi  a  tous  autres  juges  de  ce  pais  en  semblables  cas  de 
joindre  en  leur  jugement  leur  certificat  de  la  derniere  publication  . 
de  ladite  Ordonnance."    Ibid.,  p.  345. 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  226. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  629. 

*  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  xi,  p.  382.     Should  perhaps 
be  printed  in  extenso. 

'For  example,  the  minister  wrote  to  Raudot  as  early  as  June  13, 


205]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  205 

Apparently,  however,  the  King  disapproved  of  the  efforts 
of  the  Council  to  regulate  the  lower  courts,  thinking  it  was 
too  aggressive  or  that  the  Intendant  could  better  perform 
the  function.  Whatever  his  reason,  the  King  placed  the 
lower  courts  under  the  protection  of  the  Intendant.  Until 
1710,  that  official's  commission  had  instructed  him  to  see 
to  it  that  all  judges  and  other  officers  of  justice  be  main- 
tained in  their  functions  without  molestation,  and  then 
proceeded  to  indicate  his  relations  with  the  Sovereign  Coun- 
cil. Begon's  commission,  however,  ordered  him  to  prevent 
inferior  judges  and  officers  of  justice  from  being  disturbed 
in  their  functions  by  the  Superior  Council.1  This  new 
power  might  have  enabled  the  Intendant  to  encroach  upon 
the  supervisory  function  of  the  Council,  but  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  it  was  so  used.  Certainly  the  Council  continued 
to  regulate  the  lower  courts  throughout  the  period  of 
French  rule. 

Having  concluded  our  history  of  the  five  great  adminis- 
trative functions  originally  given  to  the  Council  by  the 
Edict  of  Establishment  in  1663,  let  us  consider  what  means 
the  Council  had  to  enforce  its  measures.  The  Edict  of  Es- 
tablishment authorized  Councillors  to  see  to  the  execution 

1708.  "  J'ai  vu  avec  beaucoup  de  peine  le  peu  de  regie  que  Ton  a  observee 
dans  tout  ce  qui  s'est  fait  jusqu'a  present,"  etc.  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery, 
series  F  iii,  vol.  ix,  pt.  i,  p.  150. 

1  The  commission  of  Duchesneau,  June  5,  1675,  runs :  "  presider  au 
Conseil  Souverain  en  1'absence  du  dit  Sieur  de  Frontenac,  tenir  la 
main  a  ce  que  tous  les  Juges  inferieurs  de  notre  dits  pays,  et  tous  autres 
Officiers  de  Justice  soient  maintenus  en  leurs  fonctions,  sans  y  etre 
troubles,  que  le  Conseil  Souverain  auquel  vous  presiderez  ainsi  que 
dit  est,  juge  toutes  matieres  civiles  et  criminelles,  conformement  a  nos 
Edits  et  Ordonnances  et  a  la  coutume  de  notre  bonne  ville  de  Paris." 
The  Commission  of  Begon,  March  31,  1710,  runs:  "tenir  la  main  a 
ce  que  tous  les  Juges  inferiers  du  pays  et  tous  autres  nos  officiers  de 
Justice  soient  maintenus  en  leurs  fonctions,  sans  y  etre  troubles  par 
le  Conseil  Superieur." 


THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2o6 

of  their  measures;  and  that  they  might  act  advisedly,  they 
were  to  investigate  matters  which  ought  to  come  up  before 
the  Council.  Furthermore,  they  should  give  ready  ear  to 
complaints  and  accusations  or  other  matters  brought  for- 
ward by  the  syndics  of  the  various  towns,  by  the  habitants, 
by  strangers,  travelers,  and  others,  and  should  report  them 
to  the  Council.  Thus  the  institution  was  provided  in  part 
with  authority  for  learning  what  decrees  were  necessary, 
and  for  executing  them  when  passed.1 

In  addition,  the  Council  enjoyed  the  right  to  enforce  its 
ordinances  in  its  own  court.  Infractions  were  there  judged 
severely  and  without  appeal  except  to  the  King.  A  few 
exemplary  punishments  meted  out  may  be  as  effective  as  an 
army.  As  an  executive  body  the  Council  passed  such  de- 
tailed measures  as  to  provide  conclusively  for  their  execu- 
tion, specifically  placing  the  responsibility  upon  certain  of 
its  own  members,  other  officials,  or  certain  citizens.  The 
Attorney-General  and  his  subordinates  in  the  lower  courts, 
that  is,  the  royal  attorneys,  were  its  servants.  The  marshal 
and  his  six  "  archers  "  were  at  its  disposal.  In  its  early 
history  at  least  it  held  the  whip  hand  over  the  officers  of 
the  lower  courts.  Since  under  ordinary  circumstances  the 
Council  did  not  need  to  apply  to  other  institutions  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  execution  of  its  measures,  and  since  those 
measures  were  often  in  the  nature  of  executive  orders,  we 
may  think  of  it  as  an  executive  body. 

Yet  the  powers  of  the  Council  were  chiefly  legislative 
and  judicial.  In  extraordinary  crises,  when  pitted  against 

1"Voulons  de  plus  que  les  cinq  Conseillers  .  .  .  avoir  1'oeil  et  tenir 
la  main  a  1'execution  des  choses  jugees  au  dit  Conseil,  afin  que  les  dits 
Commissaires  prennent  une  connoissance  plus  particuliere  des  affaires 
qui  devront  etre  proposees  en  celui,  en  y  rapportant  celles  dont  ils 
pourroit  etre  charges  par  les  Syndics  des  habitations  du  dit  Pays; 
habitans  d'icelui,  etrangers,  passages  et  autres  auxquels  nous  voulons  et 
entendons  que  prompte  et  breve  justice  soit  rendue." 


207]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

the  real  executive  department  of  the  government,  it  was 
helpless.  To  the  Governor  the  King  delegated  the  chief 
executive  power.  His  was  the  command  of  the  military 
forces  and  the  control  of  Indian  and  colonial  policies.  With 
the  troops  at  his  back  he  might  and  did  prevent  the  execu- 
tion of  Council  measures  that  were  objectionable  to  him. 
His  soldiers  might  with  impunity  cut  to  pieces  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  and  the  executive  officers  of  the  court  might 
be  ordered  under  arrest  to  the  Chateau  St.  Louis.  In  the 
face  of  the  Governor's  resistance,  the  Council  could  not  en- 
force its  ordinances  and  judgments.  Interference  by  the 
Governor  in  the  execution  of  Council  measures  was,  how- 
ever, exceptional,  and  in  the  administration  of  justice  he 
the  more  seldom  interfered  because  he  was  specially 
warned  against  it. 

Judicial  Power  of  the  Council 

It  was  as  a  court  that  the  Sovereign  Council  differed 
from  its  predecessors  in  New  France,  and  it  was  as  a  law 
court  that  it  functioned  throughout  the  whole  period  of 
French  rule.  A  sketch  of  the  developing  court  system  will 
reveal  its  constitutional  position.  The  old  councils  of  1647 
and  1648  had  been  administrative  in  character.  The  judi- 
cial power  belonged  to  the  Governor  until  1663,  although 
in  1651  the  office  of  Grand  Senechal  was  created  to  super- 
vise the  execution  of  justice  in  Canada.  Courts  of  first 
instance  were  established  in  Quebec  and  Three  Rivers,  pre- 
sided over  by  lieutenants  of  the  Grand  Senechal.  Yet  from 
them  appeal  was  carried  not  to  their  superior  but  to  the 
Governor.  These  courts  were  created  when  the  country 
was  under  the  control  of  the  Company  of  New  France. 
The  Island  of  Montreal  remained  outside  its  jurisdiction, 
and  there  justice  was  rendered  for  the  Sulpitians  by  a 
bailiff.  In  1663,  royal  justice  replaced  proprietary  justice 


208       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2o8 

except  in  the  bailiwick  of  Montreal.  The  Governor's  coun- 
cil became  a  Sovereign  Council  and  to  it  was  transferred 
his  judicial  function.1  In  addition  it  exercised  the  func- 
tion of  a  court  of  first  instance  in  Quebec,2  while  creating 
under  authority  of  its  charter  royal  jurisdictions  at  Three 
Rivers  and  Montreal.3 

For  a  time  there  were  two  rival  jurisdictions  in  Montreal, 
but  in  1666  Talon  recognized  the  court  of  the  Sulpitians, 
thereby  abolishing  the  royal  justice.  In  the  same  year  the 
Council  ceased  to  try  petty  cases,  for  the  Company  of  the 
West  Indies,  the  new  proprietors  of  New  France,  created  a 
local  court  in  Quebec.*  It  was  argued  that  the  Sovereign 
Council  ought  not  to  sit  upon  appeals  from  its  own  judg- 
ments. With  the  re-establishment  of  the  royal  government 
in  1674,  this  provost  court  was  abolished  and  the  Council 
was  again  made  to  serve  as  court  both  of  appeal  and  of 
first  instance.5  As  such  the  tribunal  was  called  upon  to  de- 
cide twenty  to  twenty-five  causes  in  a  single  session.  The 
King  was  gradually  convinced  that  a  local  court  in  Quebec 

1  Edict  of  Establishment :  "  donnons  et  attribuons  le  pouvoir  de  con- 
noitre  de  toutes  causes  civiles  et  criminelles,  pour  y  juger  souveraine- 
ment  et  en  dernier  ressort  selon  les  Loix  et  Ordonnancs  de  notre 
Royaume." 

1  Ibid.,  "  Voulons  de  plus  que  le  cinq  Conseillers  choises  par  dits 
Gouverneur,  Eveque,  ou  premier  Ecclesiastique,  soient  commis  de 
terminer  les  proces  et  affaires  de  peu  de  consequence." 

s  The  Edict  reads :  "  donnons  pouvoir  au  dit  Conseil  de  commettre 
a  Quebec,  a  Montreal,  aux  Trois  Rivieres,  et  en  tous  autres  lieux,  des 
personnes  qui  jugent  en  premiere  instance." 

4  For  authorization,  see  articles  xx,  xxiii,  and  xxxii.  "  Seront  les 
juges  etablis  en  tous  les  dits  lieux,"  etc.  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  46,  57. 

s  "...  a  1'egard  du  siege  de  la  prevote  et  justice  particuliere  de  Quebec, 
que  nous  avons  eteint,  et  supprime,  eteignons  et  supprimons;  voulons 
et  ordonnons  que  la  justice  y  soit  rendue  par  le  Conseil  en  premiere 
instance,  ainsi  qu'elle  1'etoit  auparavant  1'etablissement  de  la  Com- 
pagnie."  Ibid.,  p.  78. 


209  ]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  2og 

would  expedite  justice  and  might  decree  concerning  seizures 
of  property  and  other  matters,  of  which  the  sovereign 
court  could  not  take  cognizance  in  first  instance.  In  1677 
he  therefore  re-established  the  provost  court  of  Quebec.1 
At  the  same  time,  the  King  created  the  Provost  of  the 
Marechaussee  as  a  police  officer,  to  be  assisted  by  six  "arch- 
ers "  in  his  task  of  maintaining  order  on  the  highroads  and 
among  the  soldiers.2  When  any  causes  which  interested 
him  were  to  be  tried  in  the  Council,  he  was  allowed  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  deliberations. 

Two  events  happened  in  1693  and  1707  which  marked  the 
spread  of  royal,  at  the  expense  of  feudal,  justice.  In  1693 
the  Seminary  of  St.  Sulpice  in  Paris  surrendered  to  the 
King  jurisdiction  over  Montreal.  A  royal  court  to  admin- 
ister justice  in  that  district  was  straightway  created.  The 
Isle  de  Ville-Marie  and  the  manor  of  St.  Gabriel  were  still 
exempt  from  the  King's  justice.  In  1707  the  high  justice 
of  the  seigniory  of  Sillery  and  of  a  fief  in  Three  Rivers 
belonging  to  the  Jesuit  fathers  was  suppressed  by  the  In- 
tendant  under  the  King's  orders.3  Thenceforth  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  former  pleaded  their  causes  in  first  instance  in 
the  provost  court  of  Quebec  and  those  of  the  latter  in  the 
royal  court  of  Three  Rivers,  thence  by  appeal  to  the  Su- 
perior Council.  Thus  one  of  the  three  steps  in  Canadian 
litigation  was  abolished,  and  justice  was  administered  more 
expeditiously.  To  carry  a  suit  from  the  feudal  court  to  one 
of  the  local  royal  courts  and  the  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  required  some  time,  and  made  judicial  work  very 
heavy.  Where  it  was  impossible  to  cut  out  the  feudal  court, 
Canadian  jurists  sought  to  skip  the  second  stage  by  carrying 
causes  directly  from  feudal  courts  to  the  Supreme  Court.4 

1  Archives  des  Col.,  vol.  xiii,  pt.  vii,  p.  169,  et  seq. 
1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  p.  97.  3  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  328. 

4 Minister  to  Raudot.    Supplement  Canadian  Archives  Report  for  1899, 
p.  113- 


2io       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2io 

Meanwhile  another  court  had  been  making  encroach- 
ments, chiefly  on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  lower  courts.  In 
1659  Bishop  Laval  had  been  given  letters  patent  author- 
izing him  to  create  an  ecclesiastical  court.  In  1675  such  a 
court  claimed  the  right  to  try  Father  Morel,  who  was  al- 
ready on  trial  before  the  Sovereign  Council.  The  eccle- 
siastical court  or  officially  consisted  of  a  judge  or  "official" 
and  a  prosecuting  attorney  called  a  "  promoteur  ".  The 
latter  now  produced  such  proofs  of  the  legal  basis  of  the 
officially  that  Father  Morel  was  turned  over  to  its  jurisdic- 
tion.1 Subsequently  the  Council  formally  recognized  the 
existence  of  the  Officially  of  Quebec,  condescended  to  re- 
ceive appellants  from  its  jurisdiction,  and  governed  its 
procedure.2 

In  1717,  regular  admiralty  courts  were  established  in 
New  France.  Hitherto,  admiralty  causes  had  been  tried  in 
the  provost  court  of  Quebec,  in  which  sessions  the  officials 
of  that  court  (a  judge,  a  prosecuting  attorney,  and  a  clerk) 
were  called  "  les  officiers  de  la  Prevote  et  admiraute ". 
The  Council  records  from  1710  to  1715  indicate  the  increas- 
ing number  of  such  cases.  After  the  creation  of  special 
courts  to  treat  them,  the  Superior  Council  remained  consti- 
tutionally in  the  same  relative  position  of  an  appellate  court, 
although  it  was  given  more  immediate  control  over  admir- 
alty business.  For  example,  the  courts  of  admiralty  had  to 
obtain  the  confirmation  of  the  Council  in  extraordinary  ses- 
sion assembled,  before  provisional  judgments  could  be  ex- 
ecuted. Furthermore,  the  admiralty  courts,  and,  on  appeal, 

1  For  the  titles  of  this  ecclesiastical  court,  see  Jugentents  et  Delib., 
vol.  i,  p.  960. 

*For  example,  in  1714,  the  Council  judged  that  both  "official"  and 
"  promoter  "  had  contravened  the  criminal  ordinance  and  ordered  that 
the  Bishop  appoint  others  in  their  places.  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  163. 
For  another  illustration,  see  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  665. 


2i  i]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  CO  UNCIL  2 1 1 

the  Council,  might  adjudge  prizes  made  from  freebooters 
in  time  of  peace  without  sending  a  report  of  the  procedure 
to  the  admiral.1  Still  the  Council  had  had  control  of  such 
cases  before ; z  the  King  really  made  no  further  delegation 
of  power  to  it.  The  only  practical  result  was  to  lighten  the 
work  of  the  provost  court  of  Quebec. 

Council  records  make  mention  of  eight  or  nine  royal 
courts,  several  feudal  courts,  the  admiralty,  and  the  offi- 
cialty  of  Quebec.  From  these  diverse  jurisdictions,  appeals 
were  carried  to  the  Superior  Council.  When  one  considers 
that  all  cases  involving  life  or  severe  corporal  punishment 
had  to  be  so  appealed,  the  extent  of  the  Council's  work  be- 
comes evident.  Having  indicated  the  powers  and  the  scope 
of  that  court's  jurisdiction,  let  us  now  consider  the  checks 
upon  the  exercise  of  these  powers. 

In  1683,  an  unsuccessful  effort  was  made  to  deprive  the 
Council  of  jurisdiction  over  causes  involving  concessions 
of  lands,  accorded  by  Governor  and  Intendant,  by  the  pro- 
posal that  these  officials  should  judge  them  jointly,  but  the 
King  replied  that  cognizance  of  them  must  be  reserved  to 
the  Sovereign  Council.  Royal  support  of  the  Council's 
jurisdiction  failed,3  however,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and 
the  King  by  acts  of  1743  and  1747  gave  such  cases  to  the 
Governor  and  Intendant.  The  home  government  seems  to 
have  tried  by  one  measure  after  another  to  restrict  the  origi- 
nal jurisdiction,  authorized  by  the  Edict  of  Establishment. 

1  See  Regulations  governing  Admiralty  Courts.  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i, 
pp.  359-3^0. 

'  Previous  to  1684  the  Governor  had  assumed  some  control  of  the 
provost  court  of  Quebec  in  the  trial  of  admiralty  causes.  In  this  year, 
the  King  ruled  that  the  Governor  had  no  authority  over  such  causes 
and  no  control  over  the  officers  who  rendered  justice  in  that  regard. 
Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  vi,  pt.  ii,  p.  322,  et  seq. 

1  Cugnet,  Abstract  of  Royal  Decrees  and  Declarations,  p.  13. 


212        THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2I2 

In  the  first  place,  the  judicial  powers  granted  to  the  In- 
tendant,  had  they  been  fully  exercised,  would  have  seriously 
undermined  the  position  of  the  Council  as  a  Supreme  Court. 
There  were  two  parts  to  his  commission.  The  first  part 
authorized  him  to  supervise  generally  the  prosecution  of 
offenders  and  the  second,  to  act  as  judge  of  civil  cases 
in  last  resort.  His  judgments  should  be  as  valid  as  those 
emanating  from  the  King's  sovereign  courts.1  Fortunately 
the  Intendant  prized  his  position  as  president  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Quebec  and  did  not  stress  this  second  part  of  his 
commission.  The  minister  also  warned  him  to  exercise  this 
power  but  sparingly,  leaving  appeals  to  the  established 
judges.2  In  fact,  upon  important  matters,  he  actually  con- 
sulted the  Councillors  and  rendered  his  judgments  only 
after  hearing  the  conclusions  of  the  Attorney-General.3 
Nevertheless  there  was,  as  a  consequence  of  such  delegation 
of  power,  two  concurrent  systems  of  civil  justice  in  Canada. 
The  Intendant  established  his  deputies  (subdelegues) 

1  His  judicial  powers  are  thus  expressed:  (i)  "proceder  centre  les 
coupables  de  tous  crimes  de  quelque  qualite  et  condition  qu'ils  soient 
leur  faire  et  parfaire  leur  proces  jusques  au  jugement  definitif  et 
execution  due-lui  inclusivement,  appeler  le  nombre  de  juges  et  gradues 
porte  par  nos  ordonnances,  et  generalement  connoitre  de  tous  crimes  et 
delits,  abus  et  malversations  qui  pourroient  etre  commis  en  notre  dit 
pays  par  quelque  personne  que  ce  puisse  etre;  (2)  Juger  souveraine- 
ment  seul  en  matieres  civiles,  et  de  tout  ordonner  ainsi  que  vous 
verrez  etre  juste  et  a  propos,  validant  des  a  present  comme  pour  lors  les 
jugemens  qui  seront  aussi  par  vous  rendus  tout  ainsi  que  s'ils  stoient 
emanes  de  nos  Cours  souveraines  nonobstant  toutes  recusations  prise-a- 
partie,  edits,  ordonnances,  et  autres  choses  a  ce  contraires."  Edits  et 
Ord.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  34,  38,  42,  50,  56,  60,  etc. 

1  Instructions  of  Colbert  to  Talon :  "  Enfin,  bien  que  1'intendant  ait 
le  pouvoir  de  juger  seul  souverainement  et  en  dernier  ressort  les  causes 
civiles,  il  est  bott  qu'il  ne  se  serve  de  ce  pouvoir  que  rarement,  laissant 
leur  liberte  aux  juges  etablis."  Clement,  Lettres,  Instructions  et 
Memoires  de  Colbert,  vol.  ii. 

1  Lareau,  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien,  vol.  i,  pi.  229. 


213]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  213 

throughout  the  country  to  act  as  courts  of  first  instance  in 
civil  causes  involving  from  20  sous  to  100  francs.1  From 
them  appeal  was  carried  to  the  Intendant  and  no  appeal 
was  permitted  from  him  to  the  Council.  On  April  21, 
1670,  Frangois  Bellanger  was  condemned  to  a  fine  of  three 
francs  for  having  proposed  to  appeal  from  a  decision  of 
the  Intendant.2 

For  one  reason  or  another,  the  King  chose  to  transfer 
cognizance  of  certain  kinds  of  causes  from  the  Superior 
Council  to  the  Intendant.  He  decreed  that  the  former 
could  not  take  cognizance  of  causes  arising  from  infractions 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Intendant's  ordinances.3  In  1738 
the  Council  accordingly  sent  such  a  case  before  the  In- 
tendant. In  1715  the  King  gave  the  judgment  of  all  suits 
involving  frauds  connected  with  the  beaver  trade,  to  the  In- 
tendant, although  in  1709  he  had  given  them  to  the  Coun- 
cil. That  transfer  of  jurisdiction  was  due  to  the  alleged 
increase  of  fraudulent  practices  and  the  leniency  with  which 
Councillors  treated  the  offenders,  who  were  probably  shar- 
ing profits  with  their  judges.4 

In  still  another  way  did  the  King  indicate  his  desire  to 
modify  the  judicial  power  of  the  Council.  In  early  com- 
missions, the  Intendant  was  ordered  to  see  that  all  the 
lower  judges  were  undisturbed  in  the  exercise  of  their 
functions  and  that  the  Soverign  Council  render  judgments 
according  to  the  royal  edicts.  Later  commissions  provided 
that  the  Intendant  should  see  to  it  that  the  judges  of  the 
lower  courts  were  undisturbed  by  the  Superior  Council, 

1  There  were  two  in  Quebec,  one  at  Three  Rivers,  two  at  Montreal, 
one  at  Detroit  and  one  at  Michilimackanack.  Mazeres,  quoted  in 
Lareau,  op.  cit.,  passim. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  609. 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  357-58. 

4  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  ix,  pt.  ii,  p.  418. 


2i4       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [214 

thus  making  the  Intendant  the  champion  of  the  lower  courts 
against  the  aggressions  of  the  Council.  This  change  in 
commission  was  probably  due  to  the  condemnation  of  cer- 
tain lower  judges,  along  with  the  reversal  of  their  judg- 
ments. The  whole  series  of  constitutional  changes  which 
has  been  detailed  shows  how  the  Intendant's  judicial  power 
limited  that  of  the  Superior  Council. 

The  Council  did  much  to  limit  its  own  jurisdiction  by  re- 
fusing to  judge  causes.  Some  were  accordingly  judged  by 
the  Intendant  in  his  independent  capacity  as  sovereign 
judge;  others  were  sent  to  France  for  the  King's  decision.1 
Appeals  to  French  courts  in  order  to  evade  Canadian  justice 
became  increasingly  frequent.  As  early  as  1681,  the  Coun- 
cil had,  upon  instructions  from  the  King,  ruled  that  there 
should  be  no  appeal  to  other  tribunals  than  those  of  Can- 
ada, "  seeing  the  too  great  distance  which  separated  old 
and  New  France  ".2  The  Madame  de  la  Forest  case,  tried 
in  the  provost  court  of  Quebec,  the  Superior  Council  and 
the  Chatelet  of  Paris,  and  finally  decided  by  the  King  in 
Council  in  1708,  was  possibly  only  one  of  the  causes  which 
brought  forth  Raudot's  paper  against  appeals  to  France. 
Easy  appeal  to  France  not  only  made  the  judgments  of  the 
Superior  Council  count  for  less,  but  denied  the  possibility 
of  justice  to  the  poor.  Suitors  who  possessed  sufficient 
means  for  an  ocean  passage  and  a  visit  to  Paris  or  who  had 
friends  there  to  manage  their  legal  affairs  and  funds  to  oil 
the  wheels  of  justice,  invariably  appealed  to  the  King.  The 
poor  man  could  not  institute  a  suit  against  a  rich  and  op- 
pressive neighbor  for  fear  of  an  appeal  to  the  King  in  case 

•The  ordinary  formula  appearing  in  the  records  was:  "Le  Roy 
estant  eu  Son  Conseil  a  evoque  a  Soy  les  poursuites  et  procedures 
faites  au  Conseil  Souverain  de  Quebec."  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series 
F  in,  vol.  vii,  pt.  ii,  p.  765. 

1  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  ii,  p.  93. 


215]  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  215 

he  obtained  a  judgment  of  the  Superior  Council  against 
him.1  Nevertheless  shortsighted  Councillors  continued  to 
grant  appeals  to  French  courts. 

From  the  preceding  outline  of  its  history  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  broad  powers  of  the  Council  over  the  administra- 
tion of  affairs,  although  never  abrogated,  gradually  ceased 
to  be  exercised.  From  within  a  few  years  of  its  creation 
to  the  third  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  was  a 
continual  decline.  By  the  end  of  this  period,  although  hold- 
ing constitutionally  the  same  position  as  was  granted  it  by 
the  Edict  of  Establishment,  it  no  longer  participated  to  any 
extent  in  legislative  and  executive  functions,  while  even  in 
the  judicial  field  it  was  limited  by  grants  of  power  to  the 
Intendant,  by  recognition  of  the  ecclesiastical  court,  and  by 
appeals  to  France. 

1  Carres.  Gen.  series  C  xi,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  21,  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  VII 

ADMINISTRATIVE  AND  JUDICIAL  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE 

COUNCIL 

A  STUDY  of  the  ordinances  and  judgments  of  the  Coun- 
cil enables  one  to  determine  how  far  it  participated  in  the 
actual  government  of  Canada,  what  it  aimed  at  doing,  and 
how  far  its  measures  were  effective.  It  is  only  thus  that 
we  are  able  to  estimate  the  value  of  its  services  to  the 
country.  While  its  achievements  as  a  court  extended 
throughout  its  career,  the  great  ordinances  regulating  agri- 
culture, commerce,  sanitation,  and  prevention  of  fire  and 
crime,  were  passed  chiefly  during  the  first  half  century  of 
its  history.  Later,  these  ordinances  were  supplemented  by 
orders  of  the  Intendant  and  even  by  royal  orders.  To  be 
sure,  in  many  cases  the  King  indicated  lines  of  adminis- 
trative policy  which  the  Council  merely  carried  out,  but 
there  were  many  instances  which  illustrate  independent  at- 
tempts upon  the  part  of  the  Council  to  remedy  abuses,  nor 
was  the  Council's  judicial  policy,  whether  of  leniency 
towards  the  delinquent  or  of  severity,  dictated  by  the  King, 
to  whom  appeals  were  seldom  taken  in  ordinary  criminal 
cases. 

Agriculture 

It  was  early  recognized  that  agriculture  was  the  pursuit 
upon  which  the  permanence  of  the  colony  depended.  Coun- 
cillors were  farmers  and  were  inclined  to  pass  measures 
protecting  farmers.  It  was  only  gradually  that  the  fur 
trade  came  to  interest  all  classes  of  Canadians  directly  or 
indirectly,  and  that  agriculture  fell  into  second  place.  From 
216  [216 


217]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

the  very  beginning  the  home  government  insisted  upon  the 
duty  of  the  seigniors  to  clear  the  land  and  install  tenants 
for  its  cultivation.1  In  1684  grantees  were  allowed  six 
years  for  that  purpose.2  In  1711  the  Council  of  State 
gave  them  one  year  in  which  to  obey  or  lose  the  title  to 
their  land.  The  Sovereign  Council,  and  the  Intendant  also, 
passed  a  series  of  stringent  measures  of  like  tenor,  but 
nevertheless  little  additional  land  was  put  under  cultivation. 
Between  the  years  1679  and  1721  the  average  annual  in- 
crease was  only  1,008  acres,  great  estates  remaining  for 
the  most  part  uncleared.  For  example,  the  Seigneur  de 
Longueil,  some  ten  years  after  he  had  started  to  clear  an 
estate  nearly  half  a  mile  wide  by  six  miles  long,  had  put 
but  25  acres  under  cultivation.  The  case  of  the  Seigneur 
of  Riviere-Ouelle  is  still  more  striking.  Nine  years  after 
he  had  taken  possession  of  his  large  tract,  he  had  cleared 
but  \2.y2  acres  and  was  grazing  but  twelve  cattle.8  Condi- 

'"One  of  the  causes  which  have  retarded  the  peopling  of  Canada 
has  been  that  the  inhabitants  who  have  gone  thither,  have  settled  down 
wherever  they  pleased,  and  without  using  the  precaution  of  uniting 
together  and  making  their  clearances  contiguous,  in  order  to  afford 
each  other  help  when  necessary.  They  have  taken  grants  for  an  amount 
of  land  they  have  never  been  able  to  cultivate  in  consequence  of  its 
vast  extent;  and  being  thus  scattered,  they  became  exposed  to  the 
ambuscades  of  the  Iroquois,  who  by  their  fleetness  have  always  com- 
mitted their  massacres  before  those  whom  they  surprised  have  been 
able  to  obtain  assistance  from  their  neighbors.  For  this  reason  the 
King  had  an  order  of  Council  issued  two  years  ago,  whereby  His 
Majesty  ordained  as  a  remedy  for  these,  that  no  clearings  should  be 
made  thereafter  except  contiguous  the  one  to  the  other,  and  that  the 
settlements  should  be  reduced  as  much  as  possible  to  the  form  of  our 
parishes  and  towns  (bourgs')."  Documents  Relative  to  the  Colonial 
History  of  New  York,  vol.  ix,  p.  27. 

1  Jugements  et  Deliberations,  vol.  ii,  p.  968. 

•In  1679  after  forty  years  of  feudal  regime  and  fifteen  years  of 
direct  royal  intervention  only  22,000  arpents  or  18,480  acres  were  tilled. 
Forty-two  years  later  only  43,680  acres  were  cultivated.  Gerin,  "  Le 
Gentilhomme  Franc.ais,"  Proceedings  of  the  Royal  Society,  series  ii, 
vol.  ii,  pp.  79-80. 


2i8       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [2l8 

tions  were  so  bad  that  in  1732  the  decree  of  1711  was  re- 
peated, giving  the  seigniors  this  time  two  years  during 
which  to  clear  their  lands.  A  bad  harvest  in  1743  caused 
the  greatest  want  and  it  was  evident  that  new  land  must  be 
tilled  to  supply  the  towns  with  grain.  In  April,  1745,  with 
the  intention  of  making  tenants  take  up  new  lands,  the 
Council  of  State  passed  a  decree  prohibiting  the  erection  of 
stone  or  wooden  houses  upon  a  strip  of  land  smaller  than 
297  feet  wide  by  360  to  480  rods  long.  Houses  upon  such 
small  tracts  were  demolished  and,  according  to  a  contem- 
porary, the  act  was  generally  enforced.1  But  the  need  of 
concentrating  to  defend  Quebec,  Montreal,  and  other 
strategic  points  during  the  succeeding  years  of  the  critical 
struggle  with  the  English,  made  such  measures  of  no  avail. 
Weeds  and  second  growth  gradually  covered  the  cleared 
land,  so  that  when  the  country  passed  into  British  hands, 
the  whole  region  showed  neglect.2 

During  the  early  years  of  its  career  the  Council  encour- 
aged agriculture  in  many  other  ways.  Realizing  that  the 
habitants  were  the  ones  who  would  clear  the  lands,  it  pro- 
tected them  against  creditors  and  exempted  their  little  crops 
from  the  tithe  during  the  first  five  years  of  cultivation.  It 
prevented  the  seizure  of  their  grain  and  flour  en  route  to 
and  from  Quebec  or  in  Quebec  mills  during  the  time  that 
the  seignorial  mills  were  under  repair.3  In  1667,  it  low- 

1  Francois-Joseph    Cugnet,    son    of    First    Councillor    Cugnet,    who 
died  in   1751,  and  elder  brother  of  Thomas-Marie  Cugnet,  who  had 
entered  the  Council  as  assistant  Councillor  in  1754,  was  a  valuable  aid 
to  the  English  at  the  time  of  the  Conquest.    He  was  made  French 
secretary  to  the  Governor  and  judge  of  the  court  of  Quebec  and  the 
conquered  country.    In  1763  he  was  made  Road  Commissioner  (Grand 
Voyer),  and  about  1770,  made  with  other  Canadian  gentlemen  an  ab- 
stract of  French  law  as  it  obtained  in  Canada. 

2  Munro,  Seigniorial  System  in  Canada,  pp.  50-51. 

*  Ordinance  of  November  14,  1663,  see  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  63. 


219]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  219 

ered  the  tithe  from  one-twentieth  to  one-twentieth-sixth  of 
the  farmer's  grain.  It  aided  the  farmer  to  get  the  maxi- 
mum return  from  the  soil  by  punishing  with  a  fine  of  20 
sous  per  arpent  (.84  acre)  delinquents  who  permitted  their 
weeds  to  arrive  at  maturity  uncut.1  Growing  crops  were 
to  be  protected  from  the  inroads  of  horses,  cattle  and  hogs.2 
Likewise,  persons  who  passed  or  hunted  over  sowed  fields 
or  forced  the  fences,  were  subject  to  a  lo-livre  fine.  At  the 
same  time  solicitude  for  increasing  the  number  of  cattle 
was  shown.  The  salt  meadows  east  of  the  St.  Charles  were 
declared  open  for  the  cattle  of  any  colonist.  Horses  were 
limited  in  number  that  there  might  be  enough  fodder  in  the 
winter  to  support  more  cattle.  That  settlers  might  stock 
their  holdings  with  livestock  the  King  decreed  in  1686  that 
during  the  next  six  years  creditors  could  not  seize  the 
farmer's  cattle  in  payment  for  debts.3  Thus  every  encour- 
agement was  given  to  raise  crops  and  cattle. 

It  was  made  easy  for  the  habitant  to  get  land.  After 
1680  a  twentieth  part  of  the  lands  remaining  uncleared  was 
to  be  distributed  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  country.*  After 
1711  the  seigniors  could  not  refuse  to  lease  for  a  nominal 
quit-rent  lands  which  they  could  not  cultivate.  This  re- 
sulted in  tenants  often  tilling  more  cleared  lands  than  their 
lords. 

But  many  habitants  were  improvident,  sold  their  grain 
as  soon  as  it  was  ripe  and  were  forced  later  to  buy  seed 
for  the  spring  sowing  at  monopoly  prices.  The  Coun- 
cil sought  to  force  the  merchants,  who  had  "  cornered  " 
the  wheat  market,  to  sell  at  reasonable  rates.  Sev- 
eral times  the  fear  that  this  monopoly  would  prevent 

1  Ordinance  of  June  20,  1667,  see  ibid.,  p.  406. 

*  See  for  examples,  ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  613 ;  vol.  v,  p.  238. 

s  Several  classes  of  creditors  were  excepted.    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  96. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  236. 


220       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [22O 

the  habitants  from  sowing  led  the  Council  to  intervene 
with  drastic  measures.1  For  example,  in  the  spring 
of  1701,  the  Council,  faced  by  such  a  crisis,  sent  a  com- 
mittee to  visit  all  the  granaries  of  Quebec.  Upon  learn- 
ing that  some  Quebec  merchants  had  more  than  enough 
wheat  to  last  them  until  harvest,  the  Council  ordered  the 
surplus  to  be  seized  and  sold  to  the  poor  at  a  reasonable 
price.  Still  there  was  not  enough  grain  thrown  upon  the 
market  to  plant  a  large  crop,  and  the  Council  ordered  that 
the  farmers  borrow  wheat  from  their  more  fortunate  neigh- 
bors, and  that  if  proprietors  found  it  inconvenient  to  sow 
all  their  arable  lands,  persons  promising  them  one-third  the 
harvest  should  be  given  the  chance.2  In  this  case,  the  Coun- 
cil seems  to  have  succeeded  in  effecting  the  necessary  dis- 
tribution of  wheat  for  the  spring  planting.3 

Occasionally  the  Council  had  to  grapple  with  the  oppo- 
site problem  of  too  much  wheat.  In  1664,  owing  to  the 
abundant  harvest  of  the  year  before,  the  habitants  could 
not  find  sale  for  it,  since  the  merchants  would  not  take  it 
even  at  a  very  low  rate.  The  Council,  fearing  that  this 
might  lead  the  people  to  neglect  the  cultivation  of  the  soil 
and  clearing  of  the  forests,  decided  to  prevent  the  depre- 
ciation of  wheat  values.  It  ordered  that  1,000  minots  be 
purchased  for  the  use  of  the  royal  soldiers  who  were  ex- 
pected soon  to  arrive,  and  that  the  farmers  be  paid  at  the 
rate  of  5  francs  a  minot — monopoly  prices  were  only  6 
francs  10  sous — in  merchandise,  clothes,  etc.,  sent  by  His 
Majesty  and  French  merchants.4  The  purchase  of  so  large 

1  In  1668  when  wheat  was  held  at  7  livres,  the  Jesuits  sold  their  stock 
at  5  livres  and  broke  the  monopoly. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  542-544,  580. 

•Like  measures  were  passed  by  the  Council  and  the  Governor  and 
Intendant  throughout  the  eighteenth  century. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  232. 


221]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  22I 

a  quantity  of  wheat  at  once,  raised  the  price  of  the  re- 
mainder. For  the  same  reason  the  merchants  were  ordered 
to  take  wheat  in  payment  at  the  rate  of  4  francs  a  minot1 
When,  however,  desirable  measures  conflicted  with  the 
interests  of  Councillors,  they  were  not  so  ready  to  act. 
That  the  habitant  might  avoid  the  long  journeys  to  Quebec 
and  Montreal,  each  seignior  was  ordered  to  build  a  grist 
mill.  The  royal  decree  of  June  4,  1686,  ordered  the  pro- 
mulgation of  this  measure  by  the  Sovereign  Council.  Au- 
teuil  the  younger,  who  was  then  Attorney-General,  with  the 
connivance  of  the  Councillors,  many  of  whom  were  seig- 
niors and  wished  to  avoid  the  expense  of  building  mills 
upon  their  estates,  never  published  the  decree.  It  remained 
a  dead  letter  until  a  case  arose  involving  the  duty  of  a 
seignior  to  provide  a  grist  mill  for  his  tenants.  Then  it 
was  that  the  deputy  Attorney-General,  in  the  absence  of 
Auteuil,  discovered  the  shelved  decree  and  insisted  upon 
its  being  registered,  read,  published  and  posted  in  the  cus- 
tomary places.2  Furthermore,  although  the  Council  was 
supposed  to  enforce  the  Coutume  de  Paris,  burdensome 
feudal  dues  contrary  to  it  were  allowed  to  be  exacted  by 
seigniors  without  interference  by  the  Council.2  It  remained 
for  the  King  to  abolish  them  in  1717. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  549. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  478,  et  seq. 

8 "  Some  seigniors  had  established  provisions  and  servitudes  of  a 
most  onerous  kind,  among  others :  statute  labor ;  a  ground  rent  for  the 
use  of  the  common  used  as  pasture  land ;  the  privilege  of  recovering 
possession  of  lands  granted  by  them,  whenever  sold,  on  refunding  to 
the  purchaser  the  amount  of  the  purchase  money ;  the  reservation  of  the 
right  to  take  from  the  lands  granted  all  the  wood  they  might  want; 
the  preference  in  buying  what  produce  the  farmer  might  have  for  sale ; 
the  reservation  of  all  pine  and  oak  trees;  the  eleventh  part  of  the  fish 
caught  by  the  farmers  in  front  of  their  lands  gratis;  the  obligation  to 
use  the  grist  mill  of  the  Seignior,  etc."  Abstract  from  Supplement 
Can.  Archives  Report,  1899,  p.  122. 


222       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [222 

As  long  as  Councillors  were  primarily  interested  in  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil,  numerous  measures  of  protection  and 
relief  were  passed.  The  lot  of  the  Canadian  farmer  was 
made  attractive,  yet  we  have  seen  how  slowly  lands  were 
cleared.  Councillors  themselves  lost  interest  as  they  came 
to  supplement  their  salaries,  and  incomes  from  agriculture, 
by  huckstering  and  petty  trade,  and  later  by  frank  partici- 
pation in  the  fur  trade.  At  the  same  time  the  actual  super- 
vision of  the  farmer  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Intendant, 
and  it  is  doubtful  whether  some  of  the  later  Intendants  did 
not  prefer  to  discourage  self-sustaining  farms,  with  a  view 
to  the  sale  of  the  King's  stores.  A  memoir  of  1750  concern- 
ing Cape  Breton  Island  might  equally  well  apply  to  Canada. 
After  speaking  of  the  meadows  which  were  capable  of  sup- 
porting 30,000  black  cattle  instead  of  the  sixty  which  grazed 
there,  the  writer  thus  proceeds :  "  But  it  would  not  have 
been  for  the  interest  of  the  Intendants  that  the  Island  should 
produce  the  necessary  subsistence  for  its  inhabitants,  since 
the  means  of  their  heaping  up  riches  proceeds  from  the  im- 
mense number  of  ships  sent  yearly  from  France  loaded  with 
flower  and  salt  provisions,  which  they  embezzle  (from 
France)  for  their  profit,  and  often  sell  to  favorites,  who 
resell  to  the  people  at  exorbitant  rates.  This  employment, 
happily  unknown  in  the  British  constitution,  is  the  utter 
ruin  of  the  French  colonies  and  the  hindrance  to  a  flour- 
ishing population,  as  exists  in  the  British  establishments,  by 
their  tyranny  and  robberies."  l  This  description  might  ap- 
ply to  the  Bigot  regime,  but  hardly  to  that  of  Beauharnois 
and  Hocquart,  during  which  the  Council's  policy  of  securing 
cheap  wheat  for  planting  was  followed. 

The  Council's  encouragement  of  agriculture  belongs  then 
in  the  early  part  of  its  career.  Its  efforts  were  wisely  di- 

1  The    translation    appears    in    Documents   relatijs   d    I'Histoire    de 
Nouvelle  France,  vol.  iii,  p.  469. 


223]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  223 

rected,  but  it  had  to  fight  the  spirit  of  adventure  in  the  colo- 
nists and  the  easy  road  to  wealth  that  was  offered  by  the 
Indian  trade.  Its  policy  failed;  the  fur  trade  advanced 
more  rapidly  than  forest  clearings.  It  was  obvious  to  all 
that  the  English  colonies  were  based  upon  the  firmer  foun- 
dation of  compact  agricultural  settlements,1  but  the  imme- 
diate interests  of  the  French  colonists  forbade  like  success 
in  Canada. 

Commerce 

It  was  comparatively  easy  for  the  Sovereign  Council 
to  achieve  tangible  results  in  its  commercial  policies. 
Canadian  commerce  consisted  of  the  fur  trade,  the  trade 
with  France,  and  community  trade.  In  each  case,  the  Coun- 
cil stood  for  free  trade,  that  is,  equal  privileges  for  all 
Canadians.  It  desired  to  give  all  a  chance  to  participate  in 
the  profits  of  the  fur  trade.  While  the  beaver  was  still 
plentiful  about  the  settled  country  and  the  distant  Indians 
had  not  been  drawn  into  the  fur  trade,  the  Council  ordered 
the  neighboring  Indians  to  bring  their  furs  to  Quebec, 
Montreal,  and  Three  Rivers,  allowing  them  to  sell  there  in 
the  open  market  to  the  highest  bidder.  This  plan  gave  the 
Indian  a  much  better  bargain,  and  kept  the  habitant  at  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil.  Formerly  the  latter  had  sought  out 
his  red  brother  in  the  Indian  village,  had  baited  him  with 
brandy  and  obtained  his  peltries  for  a  "song."  The  Indian 
had  at  the  same  time  been  relieved  of  coming  to  the  white 
settlements  where  his  creditors  were  ready  to  seize  his  furs.2 

1  See  the  interesting  letter  of  the  minister  to  Dupuy,  May  24,  1728. 
Ibid.,  p.  142. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  558;  vol.  ii,  pp.  124,  337.  The  rules 
for  the  annual  fairs  passed  in  1683  are  further  illustrative  of  the 
Council's  policy.  Rule  6  forbade  interference  with,  or  intercepting  of, 
the  Indians  on  their  way  down  the  rivers.  Rule  7  forbade  debauching 
the  savages  in  order  to  get  their  trade  at  the  fairs.  Rule  8  forbade 
going  to  the  wigwams  of  the  Indians  for  trade  and  confined  traffic  to 
the  open  market.  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  861-862. 


224       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [224 

In  1676,  1700,  and  again  in  1707,  this  policy  of  having  the 
Indians  bring  their  beaver  skins  to  Quebec,  Montreal  and 
Three  Rivers  was  reaffirmed.  The  ordinance  of  1707  re- 
ferred to  the  non-French  Indians  and  the  Iroquois  at  the 
Sault  and  the  Mountain,  whom  Frenchmen  had  been  plying 
with  brandy  by  opening  cabarets  just  outside  their  villages.1 

As  beaver  became  scarce  and  the  neighboring  Indians  had 
to  make  long  journeys  after  skins,  or  more  distant  tribes 
had  to  be  sought  out,  interchange  of  peltries  for  merchandise 
in  the  towns  was  obviously  impossible.  The  King  there- 
fore bestowed  upon  the  Governor,  as  early  as  1675,  tne 
right  to  grant  permits  to  traders  to  go  into  the  Indian  vil- 
lages for  furs.  These  permits  were  legally  worth  250  livres 
apiece,  but  in  reality  the  Governors  received  as  much  as 
1,000  livres,  the  amount  depending  upon  the  point  of  des- 
tination.2 Officers  of  the  distant  outposts  shared  with  these 
privileged  traders  the  profits  of  the  trade.  They  were  rarely 
prosecuted.3 

The  Council's  policy  of  prohibiting  trading  except  in  the 
towns  and  the  system  of  excluding  all  but  a  few  from  com- 
merce with  distant  tribes,  caused  the  rise  of  a  class  of  men 
who  insisted  upon  the  fruits  of  the  fur  trade  and  yet  had 
not  the  money  necessary  to  purchase  the  legal  right.  This 
class  of  "  bushrangers  "  or  coureurs  de  bois  vexed  King 
and  Sovereign  Council  not  a  little.  In  1669,  the  latter  for- 
bade dealing  in  brandy  and  skins  at  the  tepees  of  the  In- 
dians, and  hunting  permits  were  required.  Ten  years  later, 
the  King  forbade  hunting  beyond  a  limit  of  three  leagues 

1  Collection  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  Hi,  vol.  ix,  pt.  i,  pp.  69,  et  seq. 

and  series  F  iii,  vol.  viii,  pt.  ii. 
1  Kalm,  Travels  Into  North  America,  vol.  iii,  p.  3°9- 
*  The  prosecutions  in  1700  were  so  farcical  in  their  nature  that  they 

called  forth  a  rebuke  from  the  King.    Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iv, 

PP.  499-503- 


225]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  22$ 

from  the  French  settlements,  except  between  January  15 
and  April  15.  These  measures  were  followed  by  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  coureurs  de  bois  by  the  Council.  In  1681 
a  general  amnesty  was  declared  and  freedom  of  trade  was 
established  until  1698  when  the  system  of  licenses  was  re- 
sumed. In  spite  of  recurrence  to  this  restrictive  method 
of  trade,  the  number  of  coureurs  de  bois  was  never  again 
so  large,  although  the  problem  of  their  defiance  of  law  and 
unlicensed  behavior  occasionally  disturbed  the  Council.1 

It  was  part  of  the  Council's  plan  of  free  trade  in  the 
cities  to  permit  the  qualified  use  of  brandy  as  a  commodity 
of  exchange.  It  could  be  sold  to  the  Indians  in  places 
where  they  could  be  restrained  from  violence,  but  carrying 
liquor  to  the  Indian  villages,  where  excesses  might  be  ex- 
pected, was  forbidden.  In  1668,  after  considerable  hesita- 
tion, the  Sovereign  Council  permitted  the  French  inhabitants 
of  New  France  "  to  sell  or  trade  all  kinds  of  liquors  to  In- 
dians, who  might  wish  to  buy  or  trade  ".  Indians,  how- 
ever, were  warned  not  to  get  drunk  on  pain  of  a  fine  of  two 
fat  beavers.2  The  Bishop  made  the  traffic  a  cas  reserve, 
thus  removing  it  from  the  sphere  of  all  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical action.  The  representations  of  the  Bishop  to  the  King 
concerning  the  disastrous  effects  of  brandy  upon  the  Indians 
resulted  in  the  submittal  of  the  question  to  twenty  of  the 
most  prominent  citizens  of  Quebec.  These  men  declared 
unanimously  in  favor  of  free  trade  in  spirituous  liquors. 
In  the  face  of  such  unanimity,  the  Bishop  consented  to  give 
up  his  cas  reserve,  and  the  King  issued  a  qualified  prohibi- 

'The  Sieur  Catalogne,  the  engineer,  says  that  in  1712  only  a  score 
of  coureurs  de  bois  set  out  from  Montreal  with  merchandise  for  the 
Indian  villages,  although  he  admits  that  a  hundred  more  might  have 
gone  except  for  the  high  cost  of  living.  Correspondance  Genirale, 
series  C  xi,  vol.  xxxiii,  pt.  i,  p.  297. 

*  Jugements  el  Delib,,  vol.  i,  p.  534- 


226       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [226 

tion  of  the  traffic  in  liquors.  Still  an  occasional  edict  against 
the  use  of  liquor,  the  employment  of  licenses  or  the  monop- 
oly of  the  trade  by  some  company,  and  the  confining  of  the 
fur  sales  to  the  French  market,  prevented  the  beaver  trade 
from  reaching  the  proportions  that  it  should  have  attained.1 
The  Sovereign  Council  exercised  considerable  control 
over  French  merchants  during  the  first  two  decades,  but  it 
gradually  lost  control  until,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  it  was 
practically  superseded  in  this  supervision  by  Governor  and 
Intendant.  Its  early  records  are  filled  with  regulations 
which  show  that  it  aimed  at  keeping  down  the  price  of 
French  merchandise.  To  effect  this  end,  it  determined  to 
what  profits  French  merchants  were  entitled.  This  process 
was  the  easier,  as  the  Council  had  the  means  of  knowing 
just  what  the  merchandise,  offered  for  sale,  was  worth  in 
France,  for  the  Sovereign  Council  had  inherited  from  the 
Avaugour  regime  the  administration  of  a  10  per  cent  im- 
post upon  merchandise.  In  order  to  know  what  sums  to 
collect,  it  was  necessary  to  inspect  the  invoices  and  to  see 
that  goods  and  invoice  corresponded.  Having  thus  ascer- 
tained the  value  of  the  goods,  it  was  easy  to  determine  what 
profits  the  merchants  should  enjoy  as  recompense  for  their 
trouble  and  the  cost  of  transportation.  Even  after  the  im- 
post was  transferred  to  liquors,  in  June,  1664,  the  Council 
continued  to  receive  the  invoices,  and  determine  the  profits 
of  French  merchants  upon  dry  merchandise.  Although  no 

1  For  example,  the  Company  of  the  Indies  and  the  King's  Domain 
joined  hands  through  their  agents  in  1724  and  1729  to  prevent  inter- 
loping. Guards  were  posted  at  Quebec  and  Montreal  and  it  was 
proposed  to  acquire  a  guardhouse  in  Montreal  to  be  the  centre  from 
which  flying  squadrons  were  to  be  dispatched.  They  sent  as  many  as 
fifteen  or  sixteen  men  in  one  detachment,  and  exciting  skirmishes  oc- 
curred between  them  and  Canadian  traders.  For  example,  the  guards 
were  sadly  maltreated  while  on  a  certain  inspection  at  the  Long  Falls. 
For  interesting  particulars,  see  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  ii,  pt.  i, 
pp.  275,  277,  287. 


227]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  227 

longer  authorized  to  exercise  this  control  as  part  of  the  duty 
of  collecting  the  tax,  it  kept  up  this  practice  with  the  in- 
tention of  protecting  the  Canadian  consumer  until  such  time 
as  His  Majesty  should  yield  to  their  entreaties  to  open  the 
trade  with  France  to  all  Frenchmen  and  Canadians. 

The  story  of  benevolent  despotism  involves  the  verifica- 
tion of  the  merchants'  invoices,  the  collection  of  the  im- 
posts based  upon  them,  the  determination  of  profits  to  be 
allowed,  and  the  verification  of  the  actual  sale  of  the  mer- 
chandise at  the  prices  set. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  a  vessel,  the  captain  could  land  noth- 
ing until  he  had  taken  his  invoices  to  the  Council.  In  Janu- 
ary, 1664,  suspecting  that  certain  invoices  represented  higher 
cost  prices  than  had  actually  been  paid  in  France,  the  Coun- 
cil appointed  three  of  its  members  to  examine  these  records 
and  the  books  of  the  merchants.  These  Councillors  were 
continued  in  office  for  some  time.  When  the  amount  of 
the  impost  had  been  determined,  it  was  paid  to  Tilly,  Coun- 
cillor, and  Repentigny,  collector,  who  as  such  received  sal- 
aries of  200  livres  each  per  annum.  These  officials  were  no 
respecters  of  persons,  for  Canadians  as  well  as  Frenchmen 
had  to  pay  the  duty  on  goods  imported  by  them.1 

The  Council  then  fixed  the  amount  of  profit  for  the  mer- 
chants. This  right  was  no  usurpation,  for  it  had  been  ex- 
ercised by  Avaugour  and  by  the  Council's  predecessor.  In 
1663,  the  latter,  under  the  authority  of  La  Tesserie,  had 
made  a  tariff  to  cover  certain  imposts,  while  allowing  a 
profit  of  65  per  cent  on  the  others.  Owing  to  a  complaint 
that  these  regulations  had  been  disregarded  to  the  great 
prejudice  of  the  people,  the  Sovereign  Council  in  1664 
made  a  new  tariff  of  55  per  cent  profit  upon  dry  merchan- 
dise, loo  upon  liquids  and  120  upon  products  not  valued  at 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  93,  US,  182,  193. 


228       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [228 

over  100  livres  per  barrel.  Similar  rates  were  given  in 
succeeding  years,1  although  fixing  of  specified  selling  prices 
became  increasingly  the  rule.  For  example,  on  July  26, 
1664,  the  price  of  brandy  per  barrel  was  fixed  at  190  livres, 
and  lard  at  80  livres  in  wheat  or  75  in  silver,  while  a  55 
per  cent  profit  was  allowed  upon  other  commodities. 

In  its  efforts  to  facilitate  the  cheap  passage  of  persons 
and  freight  to  and  from  Canada,  the  Council  passed  several 
measures.  In  1664,  the  cost  of  passage  was  about  33  livres, 
but  later,  passengers  for  France  were  charged  40  livres, 
even  though  messing  with  the  sailors.  The  freight  rates  on 
beaver  skins  were  not  to  exceed  10  livres  per  hundred- 
weight and  12  sous  per  elk  skin.  Freight  rates  might  not 
exceed  60  livres  per  barrel  payable  in  beaver  skins.2 

The  fixing  of  retail  prices  was  done  in  several  different 
ways.  The  Council  sent  commissioners  to  the  stores  and 
shops  in  order  to  see,  examine  and  appraise,  the  cloths, 
stuffs,  linens,  etc.,  and  to  have  each  tagged  with  a  price  slip 
bearing  the  King's  arms.  The  merchants  were  to  keep  de- 
tailed books  of  sales  and  of  stock  still  on  hand,  recording 
the  date  of  each  sale,  the  name  of  the  purchaser  and  the 
price  obtained.  These  books  were  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Council  at  its  discretion.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  give 
the  people  the  advantage  of  direct  purchase  and  to  cut  out 
the  profits  of  the  middle  man,  the  merchants  were  ordered 
to  expose  their  wares  for  sale  in  Quebec  for  one  month, 
and  not  over  one-tenth  could  be  sold  at  wholesale.  After 
this  first  month  the  merchants  might  dispose  of  one- fourth 
their  wares  in  Three  Rivers  and  Montreal,  observing  the 
rate,  and  informing  the  Sovereign  Council  of  the  sales  they 
had  made,  etc.8 

1  Jugements  et  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  222,  537. 
7  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  194,  268,  694. 
a  Ibid.,  pp.  226,  228. 


229]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 

How  the  Council  enforced  these  regulations  develops  an 
interesting  story.  On  October  22,  1664,  the  syndic  of  Que- 
bec represented  that  the  June  and  July  tariffs  had  not  been 
followed,  various  merchants  having  sold  at  much  higher 
rates.  On  November  12,  the  Council,  acting  upon  more 
definite  evidence,  convicted  La  Mothe  of  having  sold  goods 
at  an  exorbitant  rate  and  without  the  price  tag,  and  fined 
him  100  livres.  During  the  following  months,  it  became 
apparent  that  the  merchants,  not  caring  to  bring  similar 
fines  upon  themselves,  had  adopted  a  policy  of  withholding 
their  goods  until  scarcity  should  force  the  Council  to  fix 
higher  prices.  On  December  17,  Damours  was  appointed 
to  investigate  what  merchants  had  thus  sequestered  goods, 
and  the  syndic  was  authorized  to  address  a  warning  to  the 
offenders.  Having  made  out  a  list  of  those  who  were  with- 
holding merchandise,  the  syndic  went  to  the  Bishop  to  have 
it  promulgated,  but  the  latter  refused.  The  Council  accord- 
ingly published  it.  Still  merchandise  continued  to  cost  twice 
as  much  as  in  France,  and  the  Council  continued  to  try  by 
examination  of  invoices,  affixing  of  price  tags  and  threats 
of  punishment,  to  fix  prices  to  the  advantage  of  the  colo- 
nists.1 

At  the  same  time,  the  Council  did  not  wish  to  make  the 
Canadian  market  so  unprofitable  that  French  merchants 
would  stop  sending  goods.  It  therefore  showed  some  leni- 
ency in  its  judgment  of  offenders.  In  1664,  fines  of  500 
livres  against  three  merchants  for  failure  to  submit  account 
books  were  cancelled  because  the  Co'uncil  accepted  their  ex- 
cuse of  ignorance  of  an  ordinance  posted  in  Quebec  while 
they  were  absent.  Some  years  later  it  fined  La  Mothe  only 
23  livres,  after  he  had  been  convicted  of  selling  wine  at  100 
livres  per  cask  and  tobacco  at  3  livres  per  pound,  although 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  285,  309,  433. 


230       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [230 

the  conciliar  rate  of  1666  was  but  80  livres  and  2  livres 
respectively.1  Still  the  merchants  continued  to  grumble  at 
the  hard  conditions  imposed  upon  them  and  it  was  not  until 
free  trade  with  France  was  obtained  that  regulation  of  an 
onerous  character  ceased. 

To  attain  free  trade  the  Council  sought  the  abolition  of 
the  Company  of  the  West  Indies,  which  controlled  the 
Atlantic  trade.  It  favored  the  formation  of  a  company  of 
Canadians  to  conduct  this  trade,  and  asked  the  Intendant 
to  write  to  the  Crown  for  approval.2  The  next  year  the 
Council  attacked  the  Company  administration  in  a  letter  to 
Colbert.  It  complained  that  certain  people  were  kept  from 
Canada  because  of  inability  to  get  their  goods  transported ; 
the  Company's  ship  had  not  brought  what  the  people  needed, 
and  the  captain  had  charged  exorbitant  prices.  He  had 
brought  too  much  liquor  which  had  debauched  many  and 
ruined  their  families.  The  colonists  desired  free  trade,  a 
company  consisting  of  Canadians,  or  at  least  better  service, 
and  a  more  judicious  selection  of  imports,  if  the  old  Com- 
pany was  to  continue  its  functions.*  This  letter  had  no  im- 
mediate result  but  was  undoubtedly  influential  in  causing 
the  King  to  resume  the  colony  in  1674  and  thereby  estab- 
lish free  trade  with  France. 

Besides  coveting  the  foreign  trade  for  Canadians,  the 
Council  jealously  excluded  French  merchants  from  the  re- 
tail trade  and  the  fur  trade  with  the  Indians.  This  was 
likewise  a  policy  inherited  from  the  Council  of  1648.  One 
regulation  of  the  Council  of  1648  forbids  all  foreign  mer- 
chants to  sell  liquor  at  retail,  or  less  than  a  pound  of  tobacco, 
or  to  trade  either  directly  or  indirectly  with  the  Indians.4 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  306,  369 ;  also  Chapais,  Jean  Talon, 
Intendant,  p.  223. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  457-  *  Ibid.,  p.  525- 

'Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  56.    Ordinances  of  1653,  1654  and  1655. 


23 1 J  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  231 

The  Sovereign  Council  took  the  same  stand.  In  1683,  upon 
appeal  of  the  native  merchants,  the  following  code  of  re- 
strictions was  enacted,  summarizing  previous  similar  meas- 
ures of  the  Council.1  (i)  Foreign  merchants  might  sell 
goods  at  retail  for  only  two  months,  from  August  i  to  Sep- 
tember 30,  after  which  they  could  sell  commodities  only  by 
wholesale  or  in  bulk,  except  powder  and  lead  which  they 
might  sell  by  the  pound;  (2)  foreign  merchants  were  pro- 
hibited from  selling  shirts,  hats,  greatcoats,  suits,  etc.,  upon 
which  the  small  profits  of  manufacture  might  turn  to  the 
advantage  of  the  inhabitants;  (3)  to  keep  French  merchants 
from  participating  in  the  Indian  fur  trade,  they  were  for- 
bidden to  trade  at  Three  Rivers,  Montreal  and  other  posts, 
or  upon  the  upper  waters  of  the  rivers  from  June  i  to  Oc- 
tober 31 ;  (4)  it  was  prohibited  to  inhabitants  to  lend  their 
names  to  foreign  tradesmen. 

Such  restrictions  meant  two  things,  either  evasion  or  a 
high  price  for  French  imports.  The  Council  left  a  loop- 
hole by  omitting  to  mention  ship  captains  in  the  prohibi- 
tions. Vaudreuil  and  Begon  thought  that  selling  at  retail 
by  ship  captains  tended  to  lower  prices ;  the  more  merchants 
the  greater  competition  and  the  more  chance  to  get  rid  of 
home  products.  The  Superior  Council  therefore  in  1720 
refused  to  act  upon  the  complaints  of  Quebec  merchants  to 
make  more  stringent  rules.  Governor  and  Intendant  soon 
began  to  show  a  divergence  of  opinion.  On  November  2, 
1724,  the  former  complained  that  the  retailing  of  merchan- 
dise had  been  carried  on  without  regard  to  the  ordinance  of 
1683  of  the  Supreme  Council,  that  foreign  merchants  should 
be  prevented  from  scouring  the  "  coasts  "  and  setting  up 
shops;  that  such  actions  meant  that  habitants  had  had  to 
pay  exorbitant  prices  fixed  by  the  majority  of  the  merchants. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  72,  861-862. 


232       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [232 

On  the  same  day,  Begon  wrote  that  he  was  against  cutting 
off  ship  captains  and  French  merchants  from  the  retail 
trade,  because  ship  captains  would  have  to  accept  whatever 
prices  retailers  offered  them  or  take  their  cargoes  back  to 
France;  that  such  retailers  could  get  a  cargo  at  their  own 
price  and  retail  it  at  monopoly  prices.1  Competition  in  the 
retail  trade  was  the  only  remedy  for  high  prices. 

The  one  thing  certain  in  the  controversy  is  the  great  ex- 
pense of  French  merchandise.  For  example,  a  riot  broke 
out  near  Quebec  on  August  23,  1714,  during  which  the  mob 
threatened  to  march  upon  the  city  unless  the  price  of  mer- 
chandise was  reduced.2  The  Council  prosecuted  the  ring- 
leaders in  a  half-hearted  way,  but  was  soon  involved  in 
more  important  results  of  its  protective  policy.  So  high 
were  the  merchants'  prices  that  the  people  sold  their  finest 
flour  directly  to  the  vessels  in  order  to  secure  merchandise 
at  first  hand.  Consequently  wheat  flour  remaining  in  the 
country  was  sold  at  prohibitive  prices,  and  in  bad  years, 
cargoes  of  flour  had  to  be  sent  from  France,  because  there 
was  no  surplus  in  Canada. 

If  the  Council  was  indirectly  responsible  for  the  high 
prices  of  French  merchandise,  it  tried  on  the  other  hand 
to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  the  products  of  the  country. 
Since  a  large  part  of  French  merchandise  consisted  of  rib- 
bons, gaily-colored  fabrics,  laces,  trinkets,  brandy,  wines, 
and  tobacco,  the  Council  was  really  discouraging  idle  lux- 
ury in  making  them  too  dear  to  buy,  while  the  necessities  of 
life,  most  of  which  were  produced  in  Canada,  were  made 
available  at  competitive  prices  by  the  establishment  of 
markets.  The  first  mention  of  such  a  market  occurs  in 
1666,  when  it  was  ordered  that  one  should  be  established 

1  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  pt.  i,  vol.  xlvi,  p.  118,  et  seg. 
1  Jugemenis  et  Delib.,  vol.  vi,  p.  997. 


233]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  233 

in  Quebec,  to  be  held  Tuesday  and  Saturday  of  each 
week,  at  which  meat  and  produce  were  to  be  sold.  Later, 
a  hall  was  built  in  the  Lower  Town,  where  produce  was 
sold  daily.1  No  butcher  could  sell  meat  elsewhere  than  at 
the  stalls  in  the  market,  the  rent  of  which  went  into  the 
city  treasury.2  The  Council  tried  to  discourage  huckstering, 
in  order  to  bring  the  products  of  the  farm  directly  to  the 
consumer.  Wholesale  business  was  of  course  prohibited. 
Thrifty  housewives  and  other  small  purchasers  were  given 
a  couple  of  hours  start  of  the  innkeepers  and  other  large 
purchasers.  Usually  the  latter  were  forbidden  to  come  to 
market  before  the  eight  o'clock  bell.3  An  exception  was 
made  in  1711  of  three  innkeepers  who  had  to  feed  soldiers 
and  people  of  quality  to  whom  picked-over  vegetables  and 
meats  could  not  be  served.  On  October  n,  1676,  the  Sov- 
ereign Council  ordered  the  establishment  of  public  markets 
in  Quebec,  Three  Rivers  and  Ville  Marie,  and  forbade  trade 
in  other  places. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  market  regulations,  the  following 
of  the  year  1707  may  be  quoted:  "  In  conformity  with  the 
regulations  of  May  n,  1676,  all  restaurant-keepers,  inn- 
keepers, retail-dealers,  and  hucksterers  of  this  city  and  its 
suburbs  are  forbidden  to  go  into  the  environs  to  buy  poultry, 
game,  eggs,  butter,  and  other  small  provisions,  or  to  go  out 
along  the  shore  to  meet  those  who  are  bringing  in  provi- 
sions in  canoes  and  boats,  or  to  buy  anything  except  what 
is  exposed  in  the  market,  after  nine  o'clock  (in  the  morn- 
ing) in  the  summer  and  ten  in  the  winter,  in  order  to  give 
time  to  the  citizens  of  the  town  and  country  to  provide  them- 
selves with  what  they  need."  * 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  871. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  126,  139. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  257,  270. 
4  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  239. 


234       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [234 

Further  to  facilitate  commerce,  the  Council  regulated 
weights  and  measures  and  scales,  to  secure  uniformity.1 
During  its  early  history  it  also  fixed  the  currency.  In  1644 
it  ordained  that  liards  should  pass  at  no  more  than  3  deniers 
and  a  few  months  later  it  reduced  them  to  2  deniers  each.2 
A  few  years  earlier  the  colony  owed  it  a  debt  of  gratitude 
for  lowering  the  inflated  "marked"  sous  or  Parisian  sous  to 
their  market  value.  A  Parisian  sou  was  worth  15  deniers 
in  France,  but  20  deniers  in  New  France.  In  1662  the 
Council  of  Avaugour  by  ordinance  raised  the  value  to  24 
deniers.  Forthwith  some  enterprising  persons  inundated 
the  country  with  these  sous,  so  that  there  was  no  longer 
any  other  kind  of  money.  The  Council  ordered  that  after 
February  I,  1667,  these  marked  sous  should  pass  at  the 
rate  of  20  deniers.  Meanwhile,  those  who  would  suffer 
were  ordered  to  turn  their  coins  into  the  hands  of  the  Sieur 
Aubert  de  la  Chesnaye  and  his  assistants  in  Montreal  and 
Three  Rivers.  These  commissioners  paid  24  deniers  for 
each  sou  and  gave  it  back  at  the  rate  of  20  deniers,  thus 
losing  4  deniers  on  each  sou.  To  cover  the  losses  donations 
were  received  from  high  officials,  the  Company  of  the  West 
Indies  and  a  number  of  merchants,  the  sum  amounting  in 
all  to  2,875  Hvres.3  This  fund  of  1,150,000  deniers  enabled 
the  receivers  to  restore  287,500  sous  to  the  market  value  of 
20  deniers.  There  is  a  mention  of  one  of  these  commis- 
sioners returning  promissory  notes  for  sous  turned  in.  It 
is  probable  that  to  avoid  paying  the  extra  4  deniers  per  sou 
more  than  once  on  the  same  coin,  the  commissioners  re- 
tained all  the  money  in  their  possession  up  to  a  certain  date, 
at  which  time  they  redeemed  their  promissory  notes.*  In 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  no,  328. 

tlbid.,  vol.  i,  p.  171.  *Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  37<>,  377- 

4  Chapais  attributes  this  clever  bit  of  finance  to  Talon,  Jean  Talon,  In- 
tendant,  p.  221. 


235]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  235 

subsequent  ordinances  the  Council  regulated  the  rate  of  ex- 
change of  different  foreign  coins,  French  money  continuing 
to  pass  at  a  premium  of  33%  per  cent  over  Canadian.  When 
after  1685  colonial  paper  currency  supplemented  metal,  the 
Council  ceased  to  figure  as  regulators  of  coinage. 

The  Council  also  controlled  trade  carried  on  outside  of 
markets  and  fairs.  During  the  seventeenth  century,  it  fixed 
the  price  of  bread,  meat  and  liquors,  seeking  to  secure  uni- 
formity in  amount,  quality  and  price.  This  was  no  arbi- 
trary process.  As  early  as  1676  the  Council  provided  for 
an  assembly  consisting  of  the  chief  inhabitants,  to  meet 
semi-annually,  on  June  15  and  November  15,  and  decide 
upon  the  price  of  bread  and  upon  means  of  increasing  and 
enriching  the  colony.  Two  Councillors  or  the  lieutenant 
general  of  Quebec  were  to  preside  at  these  meetings.  In 
accordance  with  the  report  of  this  assembly  the  Council  was 
to  fix  prices.  Accordingly,  when  the  high  price  of  wheat 
made  the  baking  of  the  standard  loaf  for  the  specified  price 
unprofitable,  upon  request  of  the  bakers,  the  lieutenant  gen- 
eral of  Quebec  would  usually  appear  before  the  Council  and 
ask  that  one  or  two  of  its  members  be  deputed  to  preside 
over  the  assembly.  Thereupon  the  Council  usually  waived 
its  right  to  send  a  president  and  instructed  the  lieutenant 
general  to  convoke  the  assembly,  preside  over  its  delibera- 
tions and  report  its  conclusions.  Although  it  was  com- 
plained that  the  assembly  was  not  held  regularly  twice  a 
year,  yet  so  satisfactory  was  the  method  that  in  1705  the 
assembly  was  given  the  control  of  meat  prices  also.1  The 
assembly  of  citizens  and  the  Council  determined  just  how 
much  white,  brown  and  black  bread  could  be  made  and  for 
what  price.  They  figured,  for  example,  that  when  wheat 
stood  at  55  sous  a  minot,  a  twelve-pound  loaf  of  white 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  v,  p.  195. 


236       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [236 

household  bread  could  be  made  at  18  sous  and  the  baker 
yet  obtain  a  fair  profit.1  It  was  the  duty  of  the  lieutenant 
general  of  Quebec  to  make  frequent  visits  to  the  bakeshops 
and  see  that  the  loaves  weighed  what  they  were  marked. 
Liberty  was  left  to  the  bakers  to  buy  wheat  wherever  they 
could  get  it. 

This  system  was  not  always  strictly  enforced.  For  ex- 
ample, in  1710,  there  were  four  bakers  in  Quebec,  who  were 
obeying  the  ordinances  but  indifferently,  and  the  Council 
therefore  decided  to  permit  Pierre  Joly  to  establish  a  bake- 
shop,  where  bread  should  be  made  for  the  public  according 
to  the  regulations  of  the  Council.2  Where  there  was  a  dis- 
position to  be  law-abiding,  and  the  Council  was  persuaded 
of  the  error  of  its  calculations,  the  grievances  of  bakers, 
butchers,  and  cabaret-keepers  were  readily  redressed.3 

The  Pierre  Joly  incident  suggests  the  fact  that  there  was 
no  exclusive  right  to  exercise  a  craft.4  There  were  no  gilds, 
and  organization  of  craftsmen  was  only  suggested  in  the 
ordinance  of  1676,  when  it  was  proposed  that  masters  of 
each  craft  be  elected  by  the  artisans  to  supervise  their  re- 
spective productions.5  This  provision  was  never  carried 
into  effect  and  the  Council  realized  that  the  needs  of  so- 
ciety would  determine  the  number  of  craftsmen  in  each  line 
of  work.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  it  referred  Francois 
Fleury  to  the  assembly  when  he  sought  to  be  admitted  to 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  205. 

*Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  p.  113. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  241 ;  vol.  v,  p.  282. 

*  These  were  the  words  of  the  Council  when  it  decreed  that  since 
there  was  in  that  city  neither  exclusive  right  to  work  at  any  craft  or 
profession,  notably  those  of  roofers  and  joiners,  each  one  should  be 
permitted  to  follow  his  choice.    Co.l.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol. 
xi,  p.  363- 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  67. 


237]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  237 

the  number  of  bakers  in  Quebec.  The  assembly  decided 
that  there  were  enough  bakers  at  that  time  (I683).1  In  the 
case  of  the  request  of  Quebec  surgeons  that  the  Council  ex- 
clude ship  surgeons  and  Frenchmen  from  the  exercise  of 
their  profession  in  the  town,  that  body  refused  to  accede 
to  such  a  monopoly  measure,2  but  where  a  monopoly  would 
obviously  keep  down  the  prices  of  the  necessities  of  life, 
the  Council  pursued  an  opposite  policy.  For  example,  in 
1716,  it  granted  the  exclusive  right  of  killing  and  selling 
meat  in  the  market  to  those  butchers  who  would  guarantee 
to  sell  meat  at  8  sous  a  pound  throughout  the  year.3 

Commercial  activity  depends  largely  upon  easy  means  of 
communication.  The  rivers  of  Canada  afforded  such  facili- 
ties for  travel  by  boat,  snowshoes,  or  sledge,  that  roads 
were  but  slowly  introduced.  The  beginnings  were  primi- 
tive. Land  travel  followed  the  banks  of  the  St.  Lawrence, 
and  to  permit  this,  farmers  were  ordered  to  start  their  en- 
closures at  least  two  perches  (eleven  yards)  back  from  the 
high- water  mark.  In  August,  1664,  habitants  with  lands 
abutting  upon  the  Grande  Alice  of  Quebec  were  ordered  to 
make  it  a  free  road  and  passable  to  wagons,  within  a  fort- 
night, or  else  the  work  would  be  done  at  the  delinquent's 
expense.  This  ordinance  had  been  ignored  and  on  Septem- 
ber 3,  the  Council  fined  the  delinquents  20  sols  for  each 
arpent  in  front  of  their  possessions.  They  were  enjoined 
to  place  the  road  in  condition  by  the  coming  of  the  snows, 
under  pain  of  a  very  heavy  fine. 

Having  enforced  its  will  in  this  case  the  Council  by  1690 
had  become  insistent  upon  the  paving  of  the  adjoining 
streets.  Proprietors  in  the  Lower  Town  were  threatened 

^Jugements  et  De'ib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  5. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  vi,  pp.  429-430. 
1  Ibid.,  vol..  vi,  p.  1 19. 


238       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [238 

with  seizure  and  sale  of  property  upon  failure  to  comply 
with  the  ordinance.  They  were  allowed  to  reimburse  them- 
selves from  their  renters.  The  level  of  the  streets  was  de- 
termined by  experts  in  the  presence  of  the  grand  voyer,  or 
road  commissioner,  and  the  lieutenant  general  of  Quebec.1 
The  winding  Street  of  the  Mountain  between  the  Upper 
and  Lower  Town  was  repaired  in  1694  by  the  Governor's 
soldiers  and  the  teamsters,  through  the  contributions  of  citi- 
zens.2 In  1749,  Peter  Kalm  describes  the  streets  as  being 
paved  with  black  lime  slates,  which  were  quarried  from 
the  side  of  the  Mountain.  These  cobblestones  made  a  rug- 
ged surface,  which  was  very  troublesome  to  foot-passengers 
and  carriages.  The  streets  in  the  Lower  Town  were  com- 
paratively narrow  and  almost  always  damp,  owing  to  the 
height  of  the  houses,  which  were  usually  of  three  or  four 
stories.8 

The  first  highway  between  outlying  hamlets  and  Quebec 
was  made  in  1667.  Some  inhabitants  of  Sainte  Genevieve 
and  Saint  Michel  recommended  to  the  Council  a  route  from 
those  places  to  Quebec.  The  Council  after  hearing  a  re- 
port from  its  commissioner,  specified  in  minute  detail  where 
the  road  should  run.  Since  it  was  possible  to  take  advan- 
tage of  old  lanes,  the  task  of  cutting  down  hills  and  filling1 
gullies  was  not  very  great.  Only  a  few  leagues  had  bad 
spots  to  keep  in  repair.4  In  1796,  the  Council  delegated 
wide  powers  to  the  grand  voyer?  The  course  of  new  roads 
and  the  repair  of  old  ones  from  one  seigniory  to  another 
were  to  be  determined  by  him  in  conjunction  with  the  pro- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  330;  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series 
F  iii,  vol.  vi,  p.  500. 
1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  871. 
1  Kalm,  Travels  into  North  America,  vol.  iii,  p.  98,  et  seq. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  409. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  238. 


239]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  239 

prietors.  In  the  latters'  absence  the  local  judge  and  six  of 
the  most  prominent  inhabitants,  or  the  captain  of  the  mil- 
itia, were  to  advise  the  grand  voyer.  The  Council  demanded 
passable  roads  of  twenty-four  feet  in  width,  and  the  erec- 
tion of  bridges  over  streams.  No  one  was  to  infringe  upon 
the  road  with  enclosures.  The  captain  of  the  militia  in 
each  district  was  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  Council 
upon  the  state  of  the  roads. 

Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  these  measures,  the  condition  of 
town  and  country  roads  continued  to  be  the  subject  for  offi- 
cial complaint  well  on  into  the  eighteenth  century.  In  1712, 
the  Sieur  Catalogne,  engineer,  proposed  that  fines  and  cer- 
tain forfeitures  should  be  employed  to  repair  the  streets  of 
Quebec  the  majority  of  which  he  claimed  were  almost  im- 
passable because  of  rocks  and  mudholes.1  In  1735,  the  road 
commissioner  reported  that  the  streets  were  at  once  a 
source  of  discomfort  and  of  danger  to  the  health  of  the 
passersby.  He  said :  "  The  streets  have  their  natural  slope 
towards  the  river  and  by  compelling  each  owner  to  pave 
before  his  lot,  it  would  mean  little  cost  to  the  individual 
and  great  public  advantage.  The  citizens  themselves  de- 
mand that  the  streets  be  paved.  Two  have  already  com- 
menced to  pave  before  their  houses,  but  others  do  not  fall 
in  with  the  plan.  I  have  done  my  best  to  persuade  them. 
The  limestone  for  paving  may  be  cheaply  brought  by  barges 
from  the  seigniory  of  the  Guardian  Angel,  three  leagues 
from  Quebec,  and  this  work,  which  as  a  whole  appears  to 
be  a  considerable  project,  would  be  but  a  small  undertak- 
ing for  each  individual."  2 

Although  the  Council  had  striven  to  widen  the  narrow 

1  Corres.  Gen.,  series  Cxi,  vol.  xxxiii,  pt.  i. 

J  Lanouillier  de  Boiscler  to  the  minister  October  31,  1735.    Ibid.,  vol. 
Ixiv,  pt.  i,  p.  in. 


240       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [240 

streets,  it  was  not  until  1735  that  Three  Rivers  obeyed  the 
Council's  ordinances.  Here  the  road  commissioner  suc- 
ceeded in  adding  twelve  feet  to  their  width.  "  It  was  no 
hard  matter,"  he  reported,  "  to  get  the  streets  lined  up  anew 
as  the  wooden  houses  were  old  and  in  a  ruinous  condi- 
tion." x 

The  same  tardy  execution  of  the  Council's  orders  oc- 
curred in  regard  to  highroads.  It  was  not  until  1730  that 
there  was  a  good  road  even  between  Quebec  and  Montreal,2 
and  the  much-needed  road  to  Acadia  was  entirely  too  great 
a  venture  for  Canadian  enterprise. 

In  conclusion,  the  main  commercial  achievements  of  the 
Council  may  be  summarized  as  ( i )  the  opening  to  Canadian 
merchants  of  the  trade  with  France,  while  (2)  the  fur 
trade  was  carefully  kept  out  of  the  hands  of  French  traders ; 

(3)  partial  success  in  keeping  down  the  price  of  French 
merchandise  by  removing  the  import  duty  from  necessities 
to  liquors  and  by  permitting  only  reasonable  profits;  and 

(4)  the  encouragement  of  local  trade  by  wise  adjustment  of 
the  coinage,  by  the  creation  of  markets,  by  the  improve- 
ment of  roads  and  by  the  standardizing  of  weights  and 
measures.    While  it  did  not  undertake  large  enterprises  such 
as  the  construction  of  a  road  to  Acadia  or  the  subsidizing 
of  shipbuilding  for  the  codfisheries,  its  more  modest  deeds 
may  be  heartily  commended. 

Efforts  at  Sanitation 

The  Sovereign  Council  was  persistent  in  its  attack  upon 
unsanitary  conditions.  It  took  many  years  to  wean  the 
people  from  old  practices.  Under  the  impression  that  bad 
smells  infected  with  sickness,  the  Council  consistently  waged 

1  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ixiv,  pt.  i,  p.  in. 

1  So  good  was  the  road  that  the  journey  by  chaise  from  Quebec  to 
Montreal  occupied  but  four  and  a  half  hours.    Ibid. 


241]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  241 

war  upon  the  causes  of  such  smells.  The  problem  of  keep- 
ing the  streets  free  from  fire-inviting,  disease-breeding 
matter,  involved  ordinances  upon  several  subjects.  Every 
effort  was  made  to  have  the  streets  paved  that  they  might 
be  more  easily  swept,  for  the  unpaved  streets  became  veri- 
table quagmires  in  the  spring  and  served  as  dumping 
grounds  for  filth  and  straw.  At  first  the  Council  simply 
waged  a  spring-cleaning  campaign.  Each  proprietor  in  the 
Lower  Town  was  to  clean  the  street  in  front  of  his  house 
under  pain  of  a  lo-livre  fine.1  At  a  later  period  he  was 
required  to  keep  it  free  from  snow  and  ice  to  prevent  a 
winter's  accumulation  of  filth.  These  provisions  were  exe- 
cuted. The  streets  before  the  houses  of  delinquents  were 
cleared  of  snow  by  soldiers,  and  payment  was  exacted  by 
seizure  of  property.2  After  1694,  a  regular,  paid  scavenger 
with  horse  and  cart  worked  in  spring,  summer  and  autumn.5 
Yet  these  measures  of  the  Council  were  so  far  ineffectual 
that  the  grand  voyer  in  1735  reported  unpaved  streets  in  the 
Lower  Town  to  be  almost  impassable  during  rainy  weather 
or  during  the  melting  of  the  snows.  He  feared  infection 
from  the  stench,  from  the  filth  and  human  excrement 
(boues  et  vuidanges)  deposited  in  these  streets.4 

This  was  the  condition  of  the  streets  after  the  Council 
had  endeavored  for  seventy  years  to  force  the  people  to 
build  privies,  and  thus  simplify  the  problem  of  street-clean- 
ing. Partial  success  was  attained,  although  Quebec  never 
obtained  a  regular  sewage  system  until  1843.*  The  Council 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  187. 

*  For  an  interesting  case,  see  the  Sieur  Andre  de  Leigne's  letter  to  the 
minister  October  6,  1723.    Carres.  Gen.,  series  xi,  vol.  xiv,  pt.  i,  p.  282, 
et  seq. 

*  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  871. 

*Lanouillier  de  Boiscler  to  the  minister  October  31,   1735.    Carres. 
Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ixiv,  pt.  i,  p.  in. 
s  Douglas,  Quebec  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 


242       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [242 

was  not  to  blame  for  such  slow  progress.  It  began  in  1676 
with  a  stringent  measure  giving  householders  or  occupiers 
until  spring  to  build  privies  upon  their  lots.  Occupiers  of 
houses  or  lots  too  small  for  such  sheds  were  held  to  clean 
the  streets  before  their  dwellings  each  morning.  If  pro- 
prietors were  delinquent,  costs  of  construction  were  to  be 
taken  out  of  their  rents,  and  they  were  to  pay  besides  a  fine 
of  20  livres.  If  a  mason,  carpenter,  etc.,  worked  on  a  new 
house  not  having  a  privy,  a  fine  of  20  livres  was  to  be 
levied  on  him.1  The  enforcement  of  this  order  was  left  to 
officers  of  the  provost  court  of  Quebec.  They  reported  con- 
siderable opposition.  Some  persons  claimed  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  build  on  their  lots.  Finally  in  1710  the  city  offi- 
cers were  ordered  to  take  an  architect  and  decide  whether 
the  complaints  were  justifiable.  After  some  delay  they 
asked  to  be  excused,  and  the  Council  appointed  one  of  its 
own  members  to  carry  out  the  inspection  and  order  the 
prives  to  be  built  where  he  thought  it  practicable.2  This 
arrangement  met  with  but  partial  success,  and  the  people 
submitted  to  these  orders  only  gradually. 

Smells  of  the  pigsty,  wharves  and  slaughter-house  led  to 
the  enactment  of  ordinances,  the  frequent  repetition  of  which 
indicated  persistent  evasion.  In  the  crowded  Lower  Town 
dirty  stables  and  pigsties  were  clearly  unsanitary.  In  1676, 
the  owners  were  ordered  to  clean  their  places  every  week 
and  carry  the  manure  to  the  river.  Then,  the  number  of  pigs 
for  each  family  was  reduced  to  one,  and  finally,  in  1706, 
none  was  to  be  kept  in  the  populous  parts  of  the  Lower 
Town  during  the  summer.3  The  water  front  was  to  be 
kept  free  from  smells.  For  instance,  in  1689,  the  Cul  de 

1  fugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  60,  et  seq, 
•  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  336,  344,  353. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  233,  et  seq. 


243]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  243 

Sac  and  the  quay  before  the  Sieur  Le  Bart's  house  were  to 
be  cleaned  at  the  expense  of  the  skippers  using  them.1  The 
slaughtering  of  animals  in  the  Lower  Town  by  any  indi- 
vidual was  first  regulated,  then  forbidden.  In  1676  the 
waste  parts  were  ordered  to  be  carried  immediately  to  the 
river  to  prevent  the  infection  which  they  might  cause.  In 
1687,  the  slaughtering  business  was  put  into  the  hands  of 
regular  butchers  and  the  shambles  were  banished  to  the  edge 
of  the  town.  Later  ordinances  provided  against  uncleanli- 
ness  and  smells.2 

In  1706,  it  became  necessary  to  put  certain  restrictions 
upon  the  habitants  who  brought  slaughtered  meat  into  the 
city.  Henceforth  they  were  to  bring  certificates  from  the 
local  judge  or  parish  priest  that  the  cattle  had  not  been 
attacked  by  any  disease  nor  come  to  their  end  through  ac- 
cident, poison  or  drowning.  Furthermore,  the  royal  attor- 
ney of  Quebec  was  to  inspect  all  meat  before  it  was  put  on 
sale  in  the  market.  Uninspected  or  rejected  meat  was  sub- 
ject to  confiscation.  No  calves  under  a  month  old  were  to 
be  slain.3  If  the  meat  passed  inspection,  the  owners  were 
given,  free  of  charge,  a  permit  to  sell.  Heavy  fines  were 
placed  upon  the  habitant  who  offended  in  any  one  of  these 
particulars. 

In  these  measures  for  pure  food,  the  Council  seemed  to 
be  thoroughly  alive  to  the  dangers  of  diseased  meat.  It  did 
not,  however,  insist  upon  a  pure  water  supply.  The  people 
of  Quebec  drank  river  water.  In  1687,  the  Council 
ordered  the  digging  of  wells  both  in  the  Lower  and 
the  Upper  Town,  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of  purer 
water  as  to  create  a  more  accessible  supply  for  indi- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  in,  331. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  1 10 ;  vol.  v,  p.  233,  et  seg. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  235. 


244       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [244 

vidual  use  and  public  use  in  case  of  fire.1  In  1689, 
it  abandoned  the  idea  of  a  well  in  the  Upper  Town,  but  or- 
dered an  assembly  of  citizens  to  decide  where  one  should 
be  made  in  the  Lower  Town.  I  have  met  with  no  document 
of  later  date  describing  such  a  well.  In  fact,  throughout 
the  French  period,  the  people  continued  to  use  river  water. 
The  boys  of  most  families  trained  their  dogs  to  draw  bar- 
rels mounted  upon  wheels  into  the  river,  thence  home  to  the 
family  barrel  in  the  cellar.2  Under  English  rule  horses  re- 
placed the  dogs,  but  the  same  method  was  pursued.  Writ- 
ing in  the  first  decade  of  the  twentieth  century,  James  Dou- 
glas says :  "  Many  of  us  can  remember  the  watercart  back- 
ing into  the  dirty  water  of  Cul  de  Sac,  bucketing  the  turbid 
fluid  into  barrels,  and  distributing  it  at  i2l/2  cents  per 
barrel  ".3  Not  until  1843  did  Quebec  acquire  a  sanitary 
water  system. 

Perhaps  the  reason  that  the  Council  did  not  force  through 
its  plan  of  supplying  the  town  with  well  water  was  that  no 
epidemics  arose  during  its  administration  from  the  drinking 
of  the  river  water.  Auteuil  wrote  that  the  only  epidemics 
occurring  before  1714  were  brought  from  New  England  or 
from  the  French  vessels.4  Epidemics  from  these  sources 
suggest  the  need  of  proper  quarantine  measures  and  the 
segregation  of  contagious  diseases;  yet  I  have  met  with 
but  one  hint  at  such  an  endeavor.  In  1664,  permission  was 
given  to  a  surgeon  to  put  a  certain  person  attacked  with  a 
dangerous  disease  into  one  of  the  casements  of  the  fort  to 

1 "  Ordonne  aussy  qu'il  sera  fait  des  puys  a  la  haute  et  basse  ville 
aux  lieux  qui  seront  Estimez  les  meilleurs  et  plus  commodes,  afin  que 
Ton  puisse  facilement  avoir  Leau  En  hiver  Et  En  Este  tant  pour 
1'usage  d'un  chacun  En  particulier,  que  pour  le  bien  public  En  cas 
d'Incendie."  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  in. 

*  Kalm,  Travels  into  North  America. 

•Douglas,  Quebec  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  not  quoted  verbatim. 

4  Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xxxiv,  pt.  i,  p.  169,  et  seq. 


245]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  245 

be  treated  with  medicine.1  Hospitals  there  were,  but  the 
Council  was  not  connected  with  their  administration.  It 
established  no  smallpox  houses,  and  does  not  appear  to  have 
done  any  thing  to  check  the  spread  of  the  foreign-born 
epidemics,  which  found  such  fertile  ground  among  the 
robust  Canadians.2 

Fire  Prevention  and  Fighting 

Destructive  fires  occurred  repeatedly  during  the  French 
regime.  After  some  great  fire  the  Council  would  issue  de- 
tailed ordinances  aimed  at  preventing  a  repetition  of  the 
disaster,  or  providing  for  better  fire-fighting  facilities.  But 
after  the  second  burning  of  the  Palais  de  Justice,  in  1725, 
the  Intendant  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  property.  Dupuy  issued  two  long  sets  of  ordinances 
and  Hocquart  carried  through  most  elaborate  plans  to  make 
the  Palace  fireproof.  Brick  and  stone  floors  and  stairs  were 
introduced.  The  apartments  of  the  second  floor  were  con- 
nected by  a  corridor,  so  that  the  three  outside  stairways 
were  made  accessible,  while  an  inside  staircase  was  removed 
as  a  road  for  fire.3 

Still,  during  the  period  of  conciliar  activity,  the  people 
were  forced  to  take  many  precautions,  which  undoubtedly 
lessened  the  number  of  fires.  Careless  persons  persisted  in 
carrying  firebrands  and  live  coals  or  smoking  tobacco 
along  the  narrow  streets  of  the  Lower  Town,  littered 
with  fodder  from  stables  and  shavings  from  carpenter 
shops,  with  woodpiles  between  the  tall  cramped  houses.  Or, 
thrifty  habitants,  camping  along  the  St.  Lawrence  on  the 
eve  of  market  days,  rather  than  patronize  the  taverns  of 

1  fugements  ft  Dtlib.,  vol.  i,  p.  182. 

1  Carres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  xxxiv,  pt.  2,  p.  169,  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  li,  pt.  i,  pp.  199-205. 


246       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [246 

Quebec,  lit  great  camp  fires  near  the  shingle-roofed  houses. 
Dirty  chimneys  sent  out  showers  of  sparks  to  fall  in  the 
midst  of  this  combustible  material ;  or  wood  placed  on  top 
of  them  (mettent  du  bois  au  haut  d'Icelles)  to  prevent  smok- 
ing, caught  fire  and  fell  upon  the  shingles  below.  The 
Council  prohibited  these  abuses,  punished  delinquents  with 
fines,  and  sought  to  lessen  the  chances  of  fire  by  removing 
combustible  materials.  All  persons  were  forbidden  to  keep 
fodder  in  their  houses  or  in  other  places  susceptible  to  fire, 
or  to  winter  cattle  in  the  Lower  Town  "  because  of  acci- 
dents from  fire  which  happen  there  too  often  ".  Inhabitants 
were  not  to  throw  straw  or  other  combustible  material  into 
the  streets,  and  carpenters  and  coopers  were  to  carry  their 
shavings  to  that  receptacle  for  all  refuse,  the  St.  Lawrence. 
People  had  to  remove  their  piles  of  wood  to  a  public  wood- 
yard  maintained  on  land  formerly  acquired  by  Talon.1 
After  1688  no  more  houses  were  to  be  roofed  with  shingles. 
This  measure  was  modified  the  following  year  to  allow 
chestnut  and  walnut  shingles  for  dormer  roofs.2 

When  the  people  forgot  such  prohibitions  and  local  offi- 
cials grew  lax,  conciliar  ordinances  had  to  be  repeated. 
Eternal  vigilance  was  the  price  of  safety.  Take,  for  ex- 
ample, the  Council's  measures  against  dirty  chimneys.  In 
1676  that  body  required  that  chimneys  be  swept  every  two 
months.  By  1710  the  frequency  of  fires  made  it  insist  upon 
a  monthly  sweeping.  A  certificate  to  this  effect  signed  by 
two  neighbors  was  to  be  presented  by  the  householder  to 
the  lieutenant  general  of  Quebec.  The  Council  shrewdly 
made  the  owner  of  dirty  chimneys  legally  responsible  for 

1 1  have  followed  these  measures  closely  from  1663  to  1716.  The  most 
important  are  to  be  found  among  the  ordinances  in  Jugements  et 
Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  617;  vol.  ii,  p.-  64,  et  seq.;  vol.  in,  pp.  n,  206,  328, 
et  seq.',  vol.  vi,  p.  39. 

?  Ibid,,  vol.  iii,  pp.  206,  329. 


247]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  247 

any  damage  caused  by  them.1  It  insisted  that  all  chimneys 
should  be  of  sufficient  size  to  admit  sweeps  and  itself  un- 
dertook to  provide  those  dwarfed  workers.  After  1688  it 
appointed  experts  to  assist  the  lieutenant  general  to  inspect 
chimneys,  reporting  to  the  Sovereign  Council  for  prosecu- 
tion persons  whose  chimneys  were  not  large  enough  for  a 
sweep.2  The  lieutenant  general  probably  showed  partiality, 
for  his  report  was  by  1707  superseded  by  a  sworn  statement 
of  experts  alone.3  These  men  were  instructed  to  fix  the 
responsibility  for  certain  fires.4  Thus  the  Council  seems 
to  have  taken  all  reasonable  precautions  against  fires,  which, 
once  started,  were  so  destructive.  Prevention  was  stressed 
because  fire-fighting  facilities  were  primitive  and  ineffective. 

In  the  early  times,  good  citizens,  at  the  first  sound  of 
the  bell,  ran  to  the  fire  with  bucket  or  kettle.  Carpenters 
and  artisans  were  obliged  to  attend,  hatchet  in  hand,5  for 
Canadians  depended  more  upon  tearing  down  houses  in  the 
way  of  the  conflagration,6  than  upon  putting  the  fire  out. 
In  1689  twelve  iron  hooks  were  ordered  for  this  purpose. 
In  order  that  they  might  easily  get  at  dirty  chimneys  or  fires 
upon  the  roofs,  proprietors  were  bound  to  have  ladders 
fastened  from  eaves  to  ridgepole  and  also  at  least  one  por- 
table ladder  capable  of  reaching  from  the  ground  to  the 
eaves.7 

Although  not  trusting  to  the  ability  of  a  bucket  brigade 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  64;  vol.  vi,  p.  39. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  Hi,  p.  206. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  555. 

4  For  example,  was  the  burning  of  Rey  Gaillard's  house  in  1707  due 
to  his  son's  carelessness  with  artillery  fuses,  to  two  shots  heard  some 
time  before  the  fire,  or  to  a  dirty  chimney?  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  513,  520. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  64,  et  seq. ;  vol.  iii,  p.  329. 

•  "  pour  couper  chemin  au  feu."    Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  330. 
T  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  946. 


248       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [248 

to  extinguish  fires,  the  Council  tried  to  make  that  method 
of  fire-fighting  as  effective  as  possible.  We  have  seen  its 
attempts  in  1687  and  1689  to  have  wells  bored  for  a  supply 
of  water  during  the  months  when  the  river  was  frozen. 
Later,  it  furnished  buckets,  which  the  volunteer  firemen  ap- 
propriated for  private  use.  Finally,  in  1706,  it  ordered  a 
hundred  more.  These  were  to  be  paid  for  by  a  2O-sou  tax 
on  chimneys  and  were  not  to  be  taken  away  from  the  Cha- 
teau, the  Palace,  and  other  specified  places,  except  during  a 
fire.1  This  was  as  far  as  the  Council  got,  and  the  Intendant 
went  no  further  along  the  road  of  progress.  No  attempt 
was  made  to  force  the  river  water  to  higher  levels  by  means 
of  fire  engines  with  the  use  of  hose.  Quebec  and  Montreal 
can  be  compared  only  unfavorably  with  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  in  this  regard.  Philadelphia  bought  an  engine 
as  early  as  1718  and  in  1730  purchased  three  larger  engines, 
two  hundred  leather  buckets,  twenty  ladders  and  twenty-five 
hooks  with  axes.  New  York,  in  1731,  purchased  two  en- 
gines and  later  three  others.  In  1738  New  York  had  a  regu- 
lar force  of  twenty- four  firemen;  while  two  years  earlier 
the  Union  Fire  Company  had  been  started  in  Philadelphia 
through  the  efforts  of  Benjamin  Franklin.2 

Preservation  of  Good  Order 

The  chief  function  of  the  Sovereign  Council  was  the 
preservation  of  order.  It  acted  in  this  regard  in  two  ways: 
it  passed  wise  measures  to  prevent  crime  and  imposed  swift 
justice  upon  the  delinquent  who  disregarded  its  warnings. 
It  aimed  to  keep  the  people  busy  upon  their  lands  and 
helped  them  accordingly.  In  1663  it  distributed  clothing 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  v,  pp.  281,  529. 

1  For  these  and  other  interesting  facts  about  these  colonial  cities,  see 
Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  157,  207.  307, 
343 ;  Minutes  of  the  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York,  vol.  iv, 
pp.  54,  404,  439;  Watson,  Annals  of  Philadelphia. 


249]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  249 

and  provisions  among  the  poor,  and  in  the  following  year 
sent  the  useless  back  to  France.2  It  sought  to  stamp  out 
begging  which,  in  1671,  was  introduced  into  Quebec  by 
four  or  five  women  from  places  near  by.  These  persons 
communicated  their  boldness  to  others,  even  to  men  who 
were  able  to  work  and  to  young  persons  who  were  needed 
as  servants.  The  Commissioner  appointed  in  1674  to  in- 
vestigate conditions,  reported  the  number  of  beggars  at  three 
hundred.  They  had  been  such  a  burden  upon  the  citizens 
and  had  committed  so  many  disorders  that  it  was  to  be 
feared  they  might  pillage  the  chief  houses  of  the  city — as 
they  had  threatened  to  do.  On  August  31,  the  Council 
issued  orders  for  them  to  leave  the  town  within  a  week,  to 
return  to  the  habitations  whence  they  came,  to  raise  crops, 
etc.1  People  were  forbidden  to  give  ablebodied  beggars 
anything  at  their  house  doors  on  pain  of  a  lo-livre  fine. 
By  1683,  however,  the  beggars  had  returned.  They  built 
huts  about  the  town,  which  had  become  scandalous  and  dis- 
orderly places,  the  dens  of  vagabonds,  and  they  brought  up 
their  children  in  ways  of  idleness  so  that  they  would  not 
become  servants.  After  a  week,  quoth  the  Council,  a 
healthy  beggar  caught  in  Quebec  would  be  put  in  the  pillory ; 
a  second  offence  would  bring  a  whipping.2  Necessitous 
persons,  however,  were  allowed  to  beg  if  they  received 
licenses  from  their  local  judge  or  parish  priest.  This  privi- 
lege was  abused.  To  avoid  the  bad  influence  of  pauperized 
parents  upon  the  rising  generation,  the  Council  in  1688  es- 
tablished poor  boards  to  determine  who  were  really  the 
worthy  and  necessitous  poor.  These  were  aided;  begging 
was  forbidden. 

This  system  of  poor  relief  provided  for  three  members  on 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  18,  163-164. 

1  Coll.  Moreau  St.  Mery,  series  F  iii,  vol.  iv,  pt.  ii,  p.  806. 

'Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  871. 


250       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [250 

each  board.  One  director  was  to  determine  the  merits  of 
applicants  and  report  to  the  others.  His  duties  were  to  find 
work  for  those  able  to  work  and  to  make  an  agreement  with 
the  employer  about  the  rate  of  wage.  A  second  director 
was  to  be  treasurer  to  receive  contributions  and  money  from 
the  alms  boxes  placed  in  the  churches  and  to  account  for 
receipts  and  expenditures.  A  third  director  was  to  record 
the  deliberations  of  the  bureau  and  the  exact  condition  of 
the  poor  that  were  given  alms.  Contributions  of  money, 
clothing  and  provisions  were  solicited  each  month  by  two 
women  volunteers,  who  were  followed  by  a  person  with  a 
basket.  The  Sovereign  Council  appointed  the  members  of 
the  city  boards,  but  in  the  seigniories  and  parishes  the  peo- 
ple elected  two  habitants  to  serve  on  the  parish  board  with 
the  priest.  A  poor  man  must  live  at  least  three  months  in 
a  place  before  he  could  receive  help.  The  worthy  poor  and 
the  aged  were  to  be  given  relief  but  mendicancy  was  for- 
bidden, on  pain  of  corporal  punishment.  The  poor  boards 
were  given  power  to  imprison,  to  put  on  bread  and  water, 
and  to  withhold  provisions,  at  their  discretion.1  How  this 
system  worked  cannot  be  determined  from  the  Council 
records. 

The  Council  had  to  deal  with  a  class  of  white  servants, 
most  of  whom  had  come  over  in  earlier  times.  The  Coun- 
cil of  1648,  in  order  to  increase  the  number  of  colonists  in 
Canada,  had  forced  ship  owners  to  send  one  person  with 
every  ten  tons  of  freight.  Ship  owners  gave  those  starting 
for  America  30  livres  worth  of  clothing  and  outfit,  and 
Canadian  purchasers  paid  the  same  sum  plus  30  livres  for 
passage.  Each  immigrant  served  for  three  years  at  75  livres 
a  year,  and  built  a  house  that  he  might  marry  and  culti- 
vate the  land  after  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  service.2 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  219-223. 

*  Auteuil  to  the  Regent,  December  9,  1715,  Cor.  Gen.,  series  C  xi, 
vol.  xxxiv,  p.  179. 


251]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  251 

For  over  a  decade  the  Council  was  confronted  with  the 
problem  of  keeping  these  bound  servants  sober  and  at  work. 
The  unsatisfactory  character  of  these  servants  was,  prob- 
ably, responsible  for  the  abandonment  of  the  old  Council's 
plan  to  bring  immigrants  to  Canada.  Some  indentured 
servants  refused  to  work,  some  ran  away  and  after  a 
carousal  of  several  days  sought  new  masters.  In  1663,  the 
Council  forbade  any  persons  to  hire  servants  without  a 
written  dismissal  from  their  previous  masters,  and  laid  a 
fine  of  10  livres  upon  the  servant  and  4  livres  for  each 
day's  absence,  the  latter  to  go  to  the  injured  master.  This 
penalty  was  changed  in  1667  to  a  fine  of  50  sous  for  each 
day's  absence,  plus  the  amount  which  the  master  considered 
his  crops,  cattle,  etc.,  to  be  damaged.  The  Council  forbade 
all  persons  to  drink  with  servants  or  to  sell  them  liquor. 
These  ordinances  were  enforced,  and  where  runaway  ser- 
vants could  not  make  restitution  they  were  punished  by  im- 
prisonment until  they  were  willing  to  work,  or  were  con- 
fined for  a  couple  of  hours  in  the  pillory,  with  the  inscrip- 
tion, "  Engaged  servant  who  has  left  the  service  of  his 
master  under  false  pretences  ",  pinned  across  the  stomach, 
or,  on  a  second  offence,  were  beaten  or  branded.  This  ir- 
responsible class  gradually  disappeared,  as  servants  became 
tenants  and  freeholders,  and  the  Council  records  almost 
ceased  to  mention  runaway  servants.1 

The  Council  sought  to  prevent  intoxication  and  its  at- 
tendant crimes,  and  to  maintain  the  sacredness  of  the  family 
tie.  It  exercised  strict  supervision  over  the  inns.  Tavern- 
keepers  had  to  give  proof  of  good  character  before  they 
could  obtain  licenses.  The  old  French  law  of  1617  against 
swearing,  gambling,  etc.,  in  taverns  was  enforced.  Inn- 
keepers were  warned  against  selling  liquor  in  any  quantity 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  76,  77,  104,  310,  382,  589,  747,  762. 


252        THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [252 

to  irresponsible  persons.  Prostitution  was  not  tolerated 
and  delinquents  were  driven  into  the  woods  or  sent  back  to 
France.  In  1676,  all  persons  were  forbidden  to  give  shelter 
to  or  befriend  girls  of  evil  life  or  masqueraders  of  either 
sex.1 

But  in  such  a  society  as  existed  in  Canada,  these  prohibi- 
tions and  warnings  were  inadequate,  and  the  preservation 
of  the  peace  meant  the  execution  of  swift  justice.  Although 
Canadians  were  fond  of  the  chase  and  of  travel,  the  length 
and  rigor  of  the  winters  inclined  them  to  laziness,  and  idle- 
ness sometimes  fostered  passions  which,  stirred  beyond  con- 
trol by  the  fires  of  brandy,  resulted  in  atrocious  crimes. 
That  these  crimes  were  so  few  is  a  tribute  at  once  to  the 
character  of  the  Canadians  and  to  the  severe  repressive 
measures  of  the  Council.  The  frontier  life  of  neighbors 
of  different  social  grades  living  on  easy  terms  with  each 
other,  fostered  a  wholesome  self-respect.2  This  high  opin- 
ion of  themselves  made  them  scorn  continuous  application 
to  the  arts,  agriculture,  and  commerce,  but  it  also  made 
them  sensitive  to  ridicule  and  to  the  slightest  punishments 
designed  to  humiliate  them.  This  characteristic  accounts 
for  the  emphasis  upon  certain  ceremonies  which  will  be  de- 
scribed in  the  punishment  of  criminals.  The  worst  element 
in  Canada  were  the  more  recent  arrivals  from  France.  A 
letter  of  1730  shows  how  the  incoming  Frenchmen  compli- 
cated the  problem  of  preserving  order :  "  We  beg  Monseig- 
neur  not  to  continue  to  send  men  of  loose  life  into  the  col- 
ony. There  are  already  too  many  of  them,  and  it  is  more 
difficult  to  repress  them  in  this  country  than  anywhere  else, 

1  For  example,  ibid.,  p.  973. 

*  Beauharnais  and  Hocquart  could  not  commend  this  spirit  of  in- 
dependence in  a  province  of  an  absolute  monarchy  and  asked  the  min- 
ister in  1730  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  Swiss  to  establish  a  stronger 
government.  Nothing  came  of  the  proposal.  Cor.  Gen.,  series  C  xi, 
vol.  Hi,  pt.  i,  pp.  58-60. 


253 ]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  253 

on  account  of  the  ease  with  which  they  can  get  away  and 
the  difficulty  of  convicting  them  of  the  thefts  and  acts  of 
violence  that  they  often  commit,  the  inhabitants  of  this 
country  being  naturally  inclined  to  give  asylum  even  to  the 
guiltiest.  The  crimes  continue  to  go  on  and  the  criminals 
are  very  difficult  to  discover."  l 

As  the  frontier  characteristics  of  the  colony  began  to 
disappear  and  the  struggle  for  existence  and  the  rough  joys 
of  the  senses  gave  way  to  the  increasing  opportunities  to 
accumulate  property  and  to  a  desire  to  amass  it  by  a  short 
process,  there  was  a  change  in  the  nature  of  the  crimes  most 
frequently  committed.  Seventeenth-century  Canada  was  es- 
sentially a  man's  country.  The  King  probably  sent  few 
women  out  to  the  colony  after  Talon's  administration, 
whereas  the  immigration  of  unmarried  men  or  husbands 
without  their  wives  continued.  It  is  not  hard  therefore  to 
understand  why  rape,  adultery  and  murder  were  the  most 
frequent  crimes  of  that  period.  In  the  eighteenth  century, 
however,  these  crimes  are  for  the  most  part  replaced  by 
stealing,  counterfeiting,  forging  signatures  and  other 
methods  of  securing  money  under  false  pretences.  The 
more  serious  crimes  did  not  occur  in  waves  although  any 
suspension  in  the  execution  of  justice  resulted  in  the  in- 
crease of  crime,  if  we  may  believe  the  partisan  statements 
of  our  informants.  For  example,  the  encroachments  of  the 
Intendant  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Superior  Council  in 
1706  was  responsible  according  to  Auteuil  for  the  commis- 
sion of  crimes  with  impunity.  He  says :  "  People  have 
been  seen  in  broad  daylight  in  the  very  streets  baptizing 
dogs  and  imitating  in  derision  the  ceremonies  of  the  mass. 
Murders  from  ambush  have  become  common,  and  so  has 
adultery,  abandonment  of  infants  (suppression  de  part}, 
incest,  and  a  list  of  crimes  too  long  to  specify."  2 

1  Cor.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  iii,  p.  68. 

1  Ibid.,  vol  xxxiii,  pt.  i,  pp.  428-439 ;  ibid.,  vol.  xxii,  pt.  i,  p.  363.  ei  seq. 


254       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [254 

In  like  manner  Hocquart  reports  the  evils  of  the  previous 
administration  and  the  efficiency  of  his  own :  "  The  govern- 
ment's lack  of  firmness  in  the  past  accounts  for  the  present 
insubordination,  but  during  the  last  few  years  crimes  have 
been  punished  and  disorders  suppressed  by  proportionate 
penalties.  The  police  regulations  as  to  public  roads,  caba- 
rets, etc.,  have  been  better  observed  and  the  inhabitants  have 
conducted  themselves  better  than  formerly."  T 

A  study  of  the  criminal  records  of  the  Council  reveals 
three  interesting  features  in  the  administration  of  justice: 
first,  the  swiftness  with  which  the  criminal  was  usually 
punished,  while  the  moral  effect  upon  the  agitated  public 
was  at  its  strongest;  second,  the  frequency  with  which  the 
Council  modified  many  of  the  sentences  of  the  lower  courts ; 
and,  third,  the  severity  of  the  penalties  which  seemed  some- 
times to  be  necessary.  After  a  trial  generally  lasting  not 
more  than  a  couple  of  days  the  condemned  prisoner  was 
handed  over  to  the  executioner,  and  punishment  was  in- 
flicted on  the  same  day  that  the  judgment  was  pronounced. 
Prison  sentences  were  very  rare,  the  prisons  being  used 
chiefly  to  secure  the  accused  until  the  pronouncement  and 
execution  of  the  verdict. 

The  following  cases  illustrate  at  once  a  diversity  of 
crimes  and  the  modifications  of  sentences  made  in  the  in- 
terest of  mercy,  (i)  A  soldier  accused  of  a  grave  offence 
was  condemned  by  the  provost  of  Quebec  to  go  naked  ex- 
cept for  his  shirt,  to  kneel  before  the  church  door  and  ask 
God  for  pardon,  and  then  to  be  hanged.  The  Sovereign 
Council  upon  appeal  ordered  that  the  accused  be  put  to  the 
torture  (question  ordinaire  et  extraordinaire},  and  upon  his 
testimony  thus  extorted  it  annulled  the  sentence  of  the 
provost  court,  discharged  him  from  the  accusation,  and  sent 

1  Cor.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ixvii,  pt.  i. 


255]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  255 

him  away  absolved.  It  ordered  further  that  the  record  of 
his  trial  be  closed  and  kept  secret  unless  opened  by  decree 
of  the  Council. 

(2)  Jean  Dupuy,  who  committed  suicide  in  1735,  was 
convicted  of  the  crime  of  having  made  away  with  himself 
and  was  sentenced  by  the  lower  court  to  be  dragged  on  a 
sledge  behind  a  cart  with  his  face  to  the  ground,  to  be 
hanged  by  the  feet  for  a  day,  and  then  to  be  cast  into  the 
water  in  default  of  a  cesspool,  and  his  goods  were  to  be 
confiscated.    The  Council  merely  deprived  him  of  Christian 
burial,  proof  having  been  shown  that  he  had  betrayed  symp- 
toms of  insanity  long  before  the  suicide. 

(3)  In  1734,  a  negress  slave  had  been  sentenced  to  have 
her  hand  cut  off  and  to  be  burned  alive,  because  she  had 
set  fire  to  and  caused  the  burning  of  a  part  of  Montreal. 
By  the  modified  sentence  of  Council,  she  was  hanged  first 
and  burned  afterwards. 

(4)  In  1742,  a  soldier  of  the  garrison  of  Montreal  by 
the  name  of  Beaufort  was  sentenced  to  capital  punishment 
for  having  profaned  the  sacred  words  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  representation  of  Jesus  Christ  crucified,  by 
using  them  both  in  fortune-telling  and  in  other  profane  and 
illegal  practices.    He  was  even  convicted  of  having  scorched 
the  hands  and  feet  of  the  said  crucifix  by  holding  it  to  the 
fire  in  order  to  dry  the  drugs  with  which  he  had  covered 
part  of  it.    The  Council  modified  the  sentence,  condemning 
the  delinquent  to  be  scourged  and  to  spend  three  years  in 
the  galleys.1    Several  times  this  cummuting  of  life  penalties 
to  galley  sentences  occurred. 

(5)  In  1690,  Frangois  Laurens  was  convicted  of  having1 
improvised   certain   contracts    (obligations}  :   to   wit,   one 

1  Cor.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Ixiv,  pt.  iv,  p.  15,  et  seq. ;  Jugements  et 
Delib.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  421-425. 


256       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [256 

transfer  (transport)  unsigned,  and  three  notes  with  names 
of  witnesses  forged.  The  judge  of  Montreal  sentenced  him 
to  be  hanged,  his  property  confiscated,  his  victims  reim- 
bursed, and  the  Seigniors  of  Montreal  presented  with  the 
fine  of  400  livres.  Upon  appeal  to  the  Sovereign  Council 
he  was  condemned  to  be  put  in  the  pillory  (d'Estre  applique: 
au  carcan  et  y  demeurer  attache  par  le  Col  pendant  trois 
heures),  with  an  inscription  across  his  stomach  bearing 
these  words,  "  Author  of  false  notes  ",  to  restore  what  he 
had  fraudulently  received,  and  to  pay  50  livres  fine  for  ex- 
pense of  trial.  He  was,  further,  warned  not  to  repeat  the 
offense  on  pain  of  the  halter,  and  to  act  as  a  servant  for 
three  years.1 

(6)  The  same  judge  of  Montreal  had  condemned  a  miller 
of  Costeau  to  be  hanged  for  stealing  84  minots  of  wheat 
and  obtaining  money  from  various  customers  on  the  prom- 
ise of  furnishing  them  flour.     The  Council  amended  this 
sentence  to  a  scourging  of  the  shoulders  and  branding  with 
a  fleur-de-lis  upon  the  shoulder,  a  5O-livre  fine,  and  a  pro- 
hibition from  the  further  exercise  of  his  trade  as  a  miller.2 

(7)  Sometimes  the  Council,  although  dealing  out  rigor- 
ous sentences  because  French  law  specified  such  penalties, 
connived  at  the  omission  of  the  more  barbarous  features. 
For  example,  when,  in  1668,  Jacques  Bigeon,  criminal  and 
assassin,  was  sentenced  to  have  his  right  hand  cut  off  and 
nailed  to  a  post  and  to  be  strangled  by  hanging  to  a  gal- 
lows, the  criminal  did  not  hang  there  with  his  bleeding 
stump,  for  the  hand  was  cut  off  only  after  his  death.8 

The  turbulent  character  of  the  frontier  town  of  Montreal 
perhaps  accounts  for  the  extreme  severity  of  the  sentences 
inflicted  by  the  local  judge  of  that  city,  for  most  of  the  sen- 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  p.  421. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  424-  s  W->  vol.  i,  p.  486. 


ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  257 

tences  which  the  Council  modified  in  the  interests  of  mercy 
were  laid  by  that  official.  Still  there  were  very  severe  sen- 
tences pronounced  by  the  supreme  court  when  it  seemed 
necessary  to  make  an  example  of  evil  doers.  Only  the 
severest  punishments  could  repress  criminals  who  through 
isolation  or  natural  depravity  were  capable  of  dastardly  and 
heinous  crimes  like  incest  and  the  rape  of  daughters.  Four 
cases  occurred  between  1668  and  1686  in  which  little  girls 
of  seven  years  and  up  were  raped.  The  Council  condemned 
the  criminals  to  be  hanged ;  or  beaten,  branded  with  a  fleur- 
de-lis  on  the  cheek,  and  banished  for  ever ;  or  banished  with 
shaved  head  and  lacerated  back,  to  serve  nine  years  in  the 
King's  galleys. 

One  adulterous  woman  was  merely  compelled  to  beg  on 
bended  knee  the  pardon  of  her  husband,  while  another  was 
to  be  shaved  and  beaten  with  rods  at  the  chief  crossroads 
of  the  city,  and  to  be  kept  in  a  strong  place  at  her  husband's 
expense  provided  he  did  not  wish  to  take  her  back.  The 
men  involved  were  condemned  in  one  case  to  prison  in 
chains  and  on  bread  and  water,  and  in  the  other  to  banish- 
ment from  all  the  French  possessions  in  the  new  world 
and  to  confiscation  of  property.  In  1684,  the  irate  husband 
who  killed  the  adulterer  in  Hagrante  delicto  was  released 
from  prison  after  five  months  of  confinement,  was  given 
the  freedom  of  the  city  and  of  three  leagues  around,  and 
later  permitted  to  go  to  Montreal  to  carry  on  his  business. 

The  Sovereign  Council  several  times  ordered  promulga- 
tion of  the  ordinance  of  Henry  II  of  1556  respecting  women 
guilty  of  infanticide  or  abandoning  their  children.  In 
1671,  one  woman  was  convicted  of  having  concealed  her 
pregnancy,  of  having  cared  for  herself  three  times  and  tak- 
ing medicine  to  lose  her  fruit,  and  finally  of  having  given 
birth,  the  day  after  her  second  marriage,  to  a  child  which 
she  immediately  killed  and  buried.  She  was  put  to  the  tor- 


258       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [258 

ture  to  see  whether  or  not  she  had  arranged  the  death  trap 
in  which  her  first  husband  was  murdered,  and  was  then 
hanged.1 

The  murderer  usually  received  a  death  penalty,  although 
he  was  sometimes  banished.    The  ceremonies  attending  the 
execution  of  a  prisoner  were  designed  to  impress  the  popu- 
lace with  the  heinousness  of  his  crime.     These  ceremonies 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  Jacques  Bigeon,  who  in 
1668  was  convicted  of  having  deliberately  murdered  Nicolas 
Bernard,  and  of  numerous  other  crimes.    He  was  led  before 
the  door  of  the  church,  naked  except  for  his  shirt,  with  a 
rope  around  his  neck  and  a  torch  in  his  hand.    There,  upon 
his  knees,  he  asked  pardon  of  God,  of  the  King,  and  of  jus- 
tice, for  his  crimes,  and  was  strangled  by  hanging  to  a  gal- 
lows placed  in  the  Upper  Town.    After  death  his  head  and 
right  hand  were  cut  off  and  nailed  to  a  post  set  up  in  a 
conspicuous  place  for  a  warning.     From  his  property  25 
livres  were  spent  in  masses  for  the  soul  of  the  murdered 
Bernard  and  500  livres  went  to  the  Seigniors  of  Montreal. 
The  humiliating  march,  the  petition  for  mercy  before  the 
door  of  the  church  or  of  the  victim's  house,  the  fines  for 
the  souls  of  the  victims  or  for  the  hospital,  were  usual  fea- 
tures of  capital  punishments.2 

Theft  was  sometimes  punished  by  death,  but  usually  the 
thief  was  scourged  and  branded.3  Prison  sentences  were 
rare,  the  prisons  being  used  chiefly  to  secure  the  accused 
until  the  pronouncement  and  execution  of  the  verdict. 
From  1706  on  there  were  proposals  to  repair  the  prisons 
and  dungeons,  as  well  for  the  security  of  the  prisoners  who 
were  confined  there  as  for  preventing  their  communication 

^or  these  and  other  cases,  see  ibid.,  i,  pp.  485,  5*7,  S3O,  649,  660,  973; 
ii,  pp.  328,  969 ;  iii,  pp.  44,  424,  etc. 
1  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  485 ;  vol.  iii,  p.  425. 
*  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  975 ;  vol.  ii,  p.  82. 


259]  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  259 

with  each  other.  In  1730,  by  the  aid  of  outsiders  several 
prisoners  escaped  before  their  condemnation.  The  dun- 
geons being  so  deadly  that  no  man  could  live  in  them  con- 
tinuously, it  was  proposed  to  build  a  wall  about  the  prison 
to  enable  the  prisoners  to  take  the  air.1  The  Attorney-Gen- 
eral had  the  prisons  cleaned  and  the  straw  changed  once  a 
month.  He  furnished  the  prisoners  with  the  necessities  of 
life,  persons  of  consideration  paying  for  their  maintenance. 

The  greater  part  of  the  Council's  judicial  business  con- 
sisted of  civil  suits.  The  people  were  litigious,  and  usually 
carried  their  suits  to  the  higher  court  when  the  judgment 
of  the  lower  court  was  adverse.  So  frequent  were  these 
appeals  even  when  the  justice  of  the  judgment  was  obvious 
to  all,  that  a  fine  of  3  livres  was  laid  for  frivolous  and  in- 
admissible appeals.  The  Council  indeed  tried  to  prevent 
persons  becoming  involved  in  lawsuits  by  recognizing  settle- 
ments made  out  of  court.2  These  cases,  however,  were  com- 
paratively few. 

Contemporaries  claim  that  justice  was  cheap  and  the 

1  Beauharnais  and  Hocquart  to  the  minister  October  15,  1730.  "  Vous 
devez  estre  informe,  Monseigneur,  que  les  prisons  Royales  estoient 
si  peu  sures  que  ces  criminels  avant  leur  condamnation  avoient  trouve 
le  secret  de  couper  leurs  fers  et  rompre  les  grilles  par  la  communica- 
tion qu'ils  avoient  avec  les  personnes  de  dehors  par  le  moyen  d'une 
fenestre  a  rez  de  chaussee  qui  donnoit  dans  une  cour  fermee  simple- 
ment  de  pieux  de  fagon  que  M.  Le  Marquis  de  Beauharnais  a  la 
requisition  de  M.  Hocquart  a  este  dans  la  necessite  d'y  establir  un 
corps  de  garde  pour  empescher  leur  evasion  par  la  suitte  et  celle  des 
autres  prisonniers.  D'ailleurs  les  cachots  sent  si  malsains  par  1'humidite 
qui  y  regne  qu'il  n'est  pas  possible  a  des  homines  d'y  pouvoir  sejourner 
continuellement,  et  c'est  ce  qui  nous  a  determine  de  faire  faire  une  en- 
ceinte de  muraille  a  la  cour  des  dites  prisons  autant  pour  la  seurete 
des  prisonniers  que  pour  leur  faire  prendre  1'air  quelque  fois  comme 
dans  un  preau."  The  charge  of  the  King  for  this  wall  and  a  small 
dungeon  for  a  girl  thief  amounted  to  2087  livres  7  sous  and  10  deniers. 
Corres.  Gen.,  series  C  xi,  vol.  Hi,  pt.  i,  p.  69. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  898,  1014. 


26o       THE  SOVEREIGN  COUNCIL  OF  NEW  FRANCE     [26o 

abandon  with  which  men  went  to  law  over  trivial  sums 
seems  to  support  this  claim.  The  defendant  was  given  a 
week  or  a  fortnight  in  which  to  produce  the  papers  for  his 
defence,  and  at  the  meeting  at  the  end  of  this  period  the 
case  was  definitely  settled.  The  ordinary  suit  occupying  so 
short  a  time  could  hardly  have  cost  heavily. 

Yet  justice  was  sometimes  rather  expensive.  For  ex- 
ample, a  record  of  April  24,  1669,  shows  the  expenses  of 
an  appeal,  which  was  not  entertained,  to  have  been  as  fol- 
lows: 

To  the  bailiff  for  summoning  witnesses   8  livres  10  sous 

To  the  guard  40  sous 

To  the  clerk  for  recording  the  testimony  of,  and  read- 
ing previous  evidence  to,  the  witnesses   8  livres  10  sous 

Interrogatory  process    30  sous 

Sentence    v 30  sous 

To  witnesses  for  expenses 26  livres  10  sous 

Execution  of  the  decree  refusing  the  appeal  30  sous 

The  appellant  was  therefore  charged  50  livres  to  get  a  hear- 
ing before  the  Council.1  It  must  be  noted,  however,  that 
over  43  of  the  50  livres  were  expended  on  account  of  wit- 
nesses, the  judical  fees  being  slight  in  comparison.  In  cases 
requiring  few  witnesses  the  costs  may  well  have  amounted 
to  little,  and  we  may  believe  the  boast  of  the  Canadian  as 
to  the  cheapness  of  justice  under  the  French  regime. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  p.  555. 


APPENDIX  A 
THE  PERROT  TRIAL 

On  January  30,  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  Council. 
Tilly  and  Dupont  were  appointed  to  investigate  acts  of  violence 
practiced  by  Perrot.1  On  January  31  and  February  2,  these 
commissioners  tried  to  interrogate  Perrot  but  he  refused  to 
reply  and  challenged  the  whole  Council.  He  was  repeatedly 
questioned  but  continued  to  object  to  the  Council  as  his  judge. 
On  February  16,  Frontenac  wrote  that  the  object  of  Councillors 
was  to  take  depositions,  conduct  the  trial,  and  report  the  evi- 
dence to  the  King  for  his  decision.  Perrot  probably  saw  that  if 
he  could  successfully  challenge  all  commissioners,  the  Council 
could  not  collect  evidence  sufficient  to  condemn  him  in  the  eyes 
of  the  King.  He  adopted  these  tactics  on  June  n,  when  he 
addressed  a  very  offensive  petition  to  the  Sovereign  Council.2 
He  held  that  the  Governor  wished  to  destroy  him  utterly  in 
order  to  put  another  in  his  place,  that  the  person  temporarily 
replacing  him  was  a  relative  of  Tilly,  who  wished  to  ruin  him 
in  order  to  keep  the  said  relative  in  office ;  that  the  Councillors, 
whose  tenure  was  during  the  Governor's  pleasure  would  act 
as  the  Governor  desired.  For  these  reasons  he  refused  to 
recognize  the  Governor  and  his  Council  as  his  judges.  The 
Council  declared  his  objections  inadmissible,  detained  Tilly 
as  commissioner,  and  ordered  that  the  examination  of  witnesses 
should  proceed.  The  process  was  expensive :  eleven  witnesses 
came  down  from  Montreal,  one  of  whom  was  paid  100  livres 
and  all  of  whom  received  considerable  sums.3  On  August  17, 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  i,  pp.  790-792. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  805-807. 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  808,  810,  812. 

261]  261 


262  APPENDIX  A  [262 

Perrot  addressed  another  petition  to  the  Council,  taking  ex- 
ception not  to  the  whole  body  but  to  Frontenac,  Tilly,  Peiras 
and  Vitre.  On  the  28th  the  Council  ordered  the  exclusion  of 
all  those  challenged,  since  they  could  not  vote  upon  the  com- 
petency of  each  other,  and  ordered  the  appointment  of  five 
officials  to  judge  the  ground  of  Perrot's  challenges.1  The 
prisoner  at  once  challenged  one  of  these  emergency  judges  and 
this  challenge  was  referred  to  the  Council,  which  declared  it 
inadmissible.2 

On  September  3,  the  unchallenged  Councillors  began  their 
sessions  by  ordering  the  commissioners,  who  had  commenced 
the  trial,  to  complete  the  investigation,  that  all  documents  re- 
lating to  the  suits  might  be  sent  to  the  King  for  judgment.3 
But  they  timidly  avoided  passing  upon  the  grounds  of  Perrot's 
charges  and  consequently  upon  the  competence  of  Frontenac, 
Tilly,  Peiras  and  Vitre  to  sit  as  his  judges.  Again  on  Sep- 
tember 6  they  declared  their  incapacity  to  do  this,  whereupon 
the  Governor  said  the  Council  had  found  them  capable  and 
judge  it  they  must  or  pay  a  fine-4  But  the  Council  relieved 
them  from  this  dilemma  by  ordering  that  the  reasons  and  pleas 
for  Perrot's  challenges  be  sent  to  France  there  to  be  judged, 
and  that  for  purposes  of  facilitating  that  judgment,  the  old 
commissioners  should  proceed  with  the  interrogation  of  the 
prisoner. 

On  September  17  and  23,  October  15,  22,  and  28  and  No- 
vember 5,  the  Council  considered  petitions  written  by  Perrot, 
asking  his  release,  that  he  might  arrange  his  affairs  in  time  to 
go  to  France  that  autumn.  He  had  not  succeeded  in  prevent- 
ing the  gathering  of  evidence;  he  sought  freedom  to  go  to 
Versailles,  confident  in  the  influence  of  Talon  at  Court  or  in 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  p.  829. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  830. 

*  "  Diet  a  este  que  le  proces  sera  paracheve  d'instruire  par  les  Com- 
missaires  qui  1'ont  encommence,  pour  estre  le  tout  avec  la  prise  a  partie 
Et  recusations  envoye  en  Cour  afin  d'estre  juge."  Ibid.,  p.  831. 

*"Et  qu'ils  jugeroient  ou  payeroient  I'amende."    Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  838. 


263]  APPENDIX  A  263 

the  justice  of  his  cause.  The  refusal  of  the  officials  called  in 
to  judge  whether  or  not  his  accusations  were  true  enough  to 
incapacitate  Frontenac  and  others  from  sitting  in  judgment  in 
his  case  suggests  that  perhaps  there  was  some  truth  in  his 
claims.  His  petitions  show  increasingly  the  anger  of  a  man 
exasperated  beyond  the  bounds  of  self-control  by  his  long 
confinement.1  Thorough  investigation  of  the  charges  had  been 
made,  when  in  the  middle  of  November,  he  was  permitted  to 
sail  for  France,  where  owing  to  the  evidence  thus  collected, 
he  was  imprisoned  for  three  weeks  in  the  Bastille.2  This  trial 
undoubtedly  strengthened  the  Sovereign  Council  as  a  criminal 
court.  When  working  in  harmony  with  its  president,  no  one 
could  with  impunity  defy  it. 

1  His  last  petition  of  November  5  was  exceedingly  bitter.  He  as- 
serted that  Frontenac  planned  to  keep  him  another  year  in  prison.  He 
declared  that  he  would  exonerate  himself  at  the  expense  of  the  Coun- 
cil, which  he  would  accuse  of  negligence  and  would  cast  blame  upon 
the  shoulders  of  the  Attorney-General  who  ought  to  complete  the 
legal  examination  and  not  leave  it  to  a  "  Governor  and  President,"  who 
was  his  accuser.  He  asked  the  Council,  since  after  its  decree  of 
September  3  and  6  the  Governor  was  no  longer  its  master,  to  declare 
that  it  was  not  the  Council  but  the  Governor,  who  was  keeping  him  in 
prison,  when  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  go  with  the  papers  of  the 
trial  to  the  Court  to  answer  by  word  of  mouth.  Ibid.,  p.  878. 

1  Clement,  Lett.  Instr.  et  Mem.  de  Colb.,  vol.  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  590. 


APPENDIX  B 
THE  DAMOURS  AFFAIR 

On  August  16,  1681,  Madame  Damours  presented  a  letter 
to  the  Council  explaining  the  circumstances  of  her  husband's 
arrest  and  demanding  that  he  be  made  acquainted  with  the 
accusations  brought  against  him  and  that  his  trial  proceed  in 
the  ordinary  way.1  Damours  claimed  that  he  was  in  the  Lower 
Town  superintending  the  unloading  of  his  boat  when  a  guard 
asked  him  to  come  to  the  Chateau  St.  Louis.  Here  the  Gov- 
ernor took  him  into  his  inner  office  and  asked  why  he  had  had 
his  boat  cleared  for  Matane  without  a  permit  from  him. 
Damours  replied  that  he  had  come  to  the  Governor  in  April 
to  obtain  a  permit  for  a  canoe  which  he  intended  to  despatch 
before  the  ice  melted  sufficiently  for  the  passage  of  his  boat. 
The  Governor  had  agreed  provided  that  Boisseau,  collector  of 
the  King's  customs,  had  no  objection.  The  latter  made  no 
difficulty  about  allowing  a  canoe  to  make  the  journey  to  Matane 
until  conditions  should  permit  the  boat  to  make  the  trip.  When 
Damours  made  these  statements,  the  Governor  replied  that 
the  permit  was  for  the  canoe  and  not  for  the  boat ;  whereupon 
Damours  said :  "  Monsieur,  I  ask  pardon.  I  did  not  think  it 
was  necessary  to  take  out  another  license,  since  it  was  only  a 
question  of  going  to  a  house  on  land  that  the  King  has  given 
me.  I  thought  that  the  license  you  gave  us  ought  to  suffice. 
I  believe  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  King  to  permit  free 
access  to  the  lands  that  he  has  granted."  2  The  Governor  flew 

1 "  II  vous  plaise  ordonner  qu'il  sera  informe  des  accusations  qui 
peuvent  estre  faites  centre  luy  a  la  requeste  de  Monsieur  le  procureur 
general  pour  ensuite  luy  estre  son  proces  fait  par  les  voyes  ordinaires 
Et  vous  ferez  justice,  signe  Damours."  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  ii, 
p.  640. 

2  "...  que  Ton  aille  fort  librement  sur  les  terres  qu'il  nous  a  donnees ; 
Sur  quoi  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  s'emportant  tout  d'un  coup  de 
collere  dit  au  supai*,  aiiez  vous  les  aprendrez  les  intentions  du  Roy  Et 
vous  demeurerez  en  prison  jusques  a  ce  que  vous  les  sachiez."  This  is 
from  the  narration  of  Damours,  found  in  ibid.,  p.  639. 

264  [264 


265]  APPENDIX  B  265 

into  a  rage  at  this  speech  and  told  Damours  that  he  could  go 
learn  the  intentions  of  the  King  in  prison  and  remain  there  till 
he  knew  them.  The  guards  were  summoned  and  Damours 
was  lodged  in  prison  with  a  coureur  de  bois  by  the  name  of 
Duluth. 

Frontenac  stated  in  the  Council  that  if  Damours  had  made 
the  slightest  apology  for  his  insolent  words  or  for  his  fault 
in  clearing  a  boat  at  night  without  clearance  papers  or  report- 
ing his  act  to  the  officer  in  charge  at  Quebec  during  the  Gov- 
ernor's absence,  he  would  have  accepted  it  and  have  made 
his  punishment  merely  nominal ;  *  but  Damours  had  now  added 
to  these  offences  a  greater  one  by  tempting  the  Council  to 
undertake  something  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  It  was  not 
Damours's  place  to  inform  against  the  Governor,  since  the 
latter  could  not  be  made  an  ordinary  defendant.2  The  Gov- 
ernor thought  Damours's  scorn  of  his  authority  and  the  ap- 
peal to  the  Council  were  inspired  by  others. 

The  speech  of  Duchesneau  threw  some  light  upon  this  phase 
of  the  matter.  Upon  learning  of  Damour's  arrest,  the  In- 
tendant  and  the  Attorney-General  had  sought  the  Governor 
to  inquire  if  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him  if  the  Council  were 
assembled  to  hear  the  complaints  which  he  might  make  against 
the  said  Damours,  in  order  to  try  him.  The  Governor  an- 
swered that  it  was  a  matter  that  did  not  concern  the  Council. 
It  was  possible  that  Madame  Damours  carried  suggestions 
from  the  Intendant  and  Attorney-General  which  prompted  the 
appeal  of  the  prisoner  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Council.  It 
is  impossible  to  think  that  the  three  had  previously  planned 
the  series  of  events  for  the  sake  of  humiliating  Frontenac  by 
scorning  his  authority  and  making  him  amenable  to  the  Coun- 
cil. The  nature  of  the  offense  was  too  rash  and  blundering 
to  have  been  the  result  of  such  plans.  Damours's  act  was  ill- 
considered  and  may  have  been  due  to  the  ignorance  of  clearing 

1 "  II  les   auroit  volontiers   receus   Et   se  seroit  contante   de  1'avoir 
retenu  quelques  jours  aux  arrests  pour  1'example."    Ibid.,  p.  642. 
2  "...  qu'il  n'en  ayt  une  comm°M  parere  du  Roy."    Ibid. 


266  APPENDIX  B  [266 

formalities  that  he  professed.  The  wording  of  the  pass  for 
the  canoe  might  have  excused  his  failure  to  obtain  another  for 
his  boat,1  but  the  secrecy  and  irregularity  of  the  departure  for 
the  boat  are  features  of  the  episode  that  excite  suspicion.  Still 
they  prove  no  more  than  that  this  Councillor,  who  was  un- 
doubtedly a  victim  of  inflated  ideas  about  his  position  and 
the  privileges  of  his  office,  disregarded  some  of  the  regulations. 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  action  was  due  to  conspiracy. 
Damour's  record  of  eighteen  years  in  the  Council  would  for- 
bid such  a  belief.  Governors  during  that  time  had  had  grounds 
to  rebuke  several  of  the  Councillors  but  none  of  them  had 
complained  of  Damours.  Even  Mesy  had  spoken  well  of  him 
and  had  reappointed  him.  His  assumption  to  interpret  the 
intentions  of  the  King  was  undoubtedly  insolent:  Fron- 
tenac  claimed  that  function  as  the  sole  representative  of  the 
King's  person  in  France.  He  had  often  made  use  of  the 
words  now  used  by  Damours.  To  a  man  without  a  sense  of 
humor  it  was  an  irritating  situation.  To  Frontenac,  Damours's 
next  step  was  the  culminating  display  of  insolence.  To 
Damours  it  seemed  but  right  that  he  should  be  tried  by  the 
Council.  Arbitrary  imprisonment  was  not  in  accordance  with 
his  ideas  of  the  privileges  of  Councillors.  Trial  by  one's  peers 
was  an  old  feudal  privilege.  He  was  simply  asking  that 
privilege;  but  in  view  of  the  recent  movements  to  make  the 
Governor  amenable  to  the  court,  his  demand  inevitably  raised 
that  issue.  Would  the  Council  be  able  to  effect  the  release 
of  Damours,  or  failing  that,  would  it  be  recognized  as  the 
court  to  try  an  action  which  involved  the  Governor  and  one  of 
its  members? 

On  the  day  Madame  Damours  presented  the  letter  to  the 
Council  the  issue  was  joined.  The  session  had  been  called  to 
register  the  King's  Edict  of  Amnesty  for  the  coureurs  de  bois,2 

iaNous  permettons  au  Sr  Damours  etc.  d'aller  dans  un  Canot  a  la 
Re  Matane  .  .  .  Et  en  attendant  leur  barque  puisse  les  aller  joindre  au 
dit  lieu  a  la  fonte  des  glaces."  Ibid.,  p.  642. 

*  See  Edits  et  Ord.,  vol.  i,  pp.  248-250. 


267]  APPENDIX  B 

and  a  further  edict  which  prohibited  going  into  the  depths  of 
the  forest  to  trade.  The  Governor  pointed  out  that  Damours 
should  have  drawn  up  a  petition  and  had  it  presented  by  one 
of  the  Councillors  and  that  this  irregularly  presented  letter 
should  be  considered  only  after  the  important  business  of  the 
session  had  been  despatched.  The  Intendant  argued  that  they 
ought  not  to  refuse  the  request  of  Damours,  who  was  an 
old  Councillor  and  one  whose  conduct  had  always  been  most 
prudent ;  that  all  the  Councillors  should  be  present  for  the  im- 
portant work  of  the  meeting,  a  necessity  which  had  influenced 
the  Council  at  the  instance  of  the  Governor  himself  to  term- 
inate the  Tilly-Peyras  affair  in  order  that  they  might  give 
their  opinions.  Frontenac  said  that  a  full  attendance  was  de- 
sirable but  not  necessary.  The  Attorney-General  concluded 
that  the  Council  should  attend  to  the  business  of  the  King 
only  after  the  affair  of  Damours  was  settled;  and  that  the 
letter  be  read  at  once.  And  so  it  was  voted. 

In  the  speeches  that  followed  the  reading,  Duchesneau  re- 
quested the  Governor  to  set  Damours  at  liberty,  in  order  that 
he  might  give  his  opinion  concerning  the  registration  of  the 
edicts  of  the  King.  The  Governor  refused.  The  morning 
had  been  consumed  by  these  discussions  and  as  the  noon  hour 
sounded,  the  Intendant  bade  the  clerk  come  with  him.  The 
Governor  said  that  he  would  prevent  his  departure  until  the 
minutes  had  been  signed.  The  Intendant  requested  that  he 
be  allowed  to  go  to  his  house  with  the  clerk,  in  order  to  look 
over  the  minutes  at  his  leisure,  for  as  he  was  responsible  for 
their  correctness,  he  always  verified  before  signing  them. 
The  Governor  implied  that  the  Intendant  changed  the  minutes 
to  suit  himself,  and  insisted  that  they  should  be  signed  then 
and  there  so  that  nothing  could  be  changed.  The  Intendant 
refused  and  attempted  to  leave  the  Council  chamber,  when 
Frontenac  placed  himself  before  the  door,  again  asking  the 
Intendant  to  sign  the  minutes,  and  said  that  he  would  do 
service  as  usher  himself.  But  Duchesneau  replied  that  he 
would  rather  make  his  exit  through  the  window  or  stay  there 


268  APPENDIX  B  [268 

all  day  than  comply  with  the  request  of  the  Governor,1  and 
he  protested  against  these  violent  measures  which  kept  the 
whole  Council  in  the  chamber,  and  asked  to  be  assigned  a 
place  where  he  could  examine  the  minutes  in  freedom  and 
quiet  The  Governor  relented  and  permitted  him  to  go  into 
his  own  office  to  examine  and  sign  the  registers. 

On  August  1 8  the  Governor  again  refused  to  set  Damours 
at  liberty  and  said  that  this  was  not  an  affair  that  concerned 
the  Council.  The  Attorney-General  demanded  that  the  Gov- 
ernor be  asked  to  agree  that  all  the  documents  pertaining  to 
the  case  be  sent  to  the  King  for  his  decision.  The  Council 
so  voted.  On  the  2Oth,  the  same  officer  submitted  further 
reports  on  the  Damours  case,  which  the  Council  ordered  to  be 
attached  to  the  other  documents  which  were  to  be  sent  to  the 
King.  These  hostile  votes  were  obtained  by  giving  the  In- 
tendant  a  vote  and  excluding  the  Governor  as  an  interested 
party-2  The  Governor  remarked  that  these  added  documents 
would  further  enlighten  the  King  as  to  the  purity  of  motive 
displayed  by  the  Attorney-General  and  some  of  the  Councillors. 
He  stated  that  the  King  would  be  informed  that  Tilly,  Dupont, 
and  Peyras  had  not  participated  in  the  deliberations  concerning 
the  Damours  affair  as  they  considered  it  not  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Council  and  as  infringing  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Governor.  The  majority  of  the  Council,  however,  had 
succeeded  in  taking  the  first  steps  in  the  trial  of  Damours  and 
intended  to  submit  the  results  of  their  investigations  to  the 
King.  The  steady  resistance  of  the  Governor  prevented  any 
greater  success  for  their  plans.  Damours  remained  in  prison 
until  the  autumn  recess. 

'"II  [M.  le  Gouverneur]  se  seroit  mis  devant  la  porte  et  auroit  dit 
qu'il  serviroit  plutost  d'huissier  pour  empescher  qu'il  ne  1'ouvrist  Et 
1'ouroit  encore  prie  de  vouloir  faire  une  chose  qui  est  si  fort  dans  les 
formes,  dont  il  auroit  encor  fait  reffus  Et  dit  qu'il  sortiroit  plutost 
par  la  fenestre,  ou  qu'il  demeureroit  tout  le  jour  icy."  Jugements  et 
Delib.,  vol.  ii,  p.  643. 

'"L'affaire  mise  en  deliberation,  Monsieur  1'Intendant  dit  qu'il  ne 
prenoit  point  1'avis  de  Monsieur  le  Gouverneur  puisque  c'estoit  une 
affaire  (Jui  le  regardoit."  Ibid.,  p.  661. 


APPENDIX  C 
THE  CALLIERES  AND  DESJORDY  CASES 

Meanwhile  St.  Vallier  had  further  played  his  role  as 
"  scourge  of  Canada,"  as  Laval  called  him.  At  a  religious 
ceremony  which  was  to  take  place  at  the  house  of  the  Recollets 
of  Ville  Marie,  and  at  which  the  Bishop  and  Callieres,  the 
Governor  of  Montreal,  were  to  be  present,  the  Bishop,  remark- 
ing that  the  stall  of  honor  had  been  reserved  for  Callieres, 
had  it  removed.  Callieres  arriving  shortly  afterward  had  it  put 
back  into  its  former  place.  The  Bishop  issued  a  mandate 
ordering  the  Recollet  fathers  to  close  their  church,  to  refrain 
from  celebrating  any  ceremonies,  and  from  administering  any 
sacraments  therein,  for  not  having  obeyed  his  orders  as  to  the 
prie-dieu.  He  then  issued  three  monitories,  in  which  after 
explaining  at  length  the  reasons  for  his  interdict,  he  referred 
to  the  scandalous  conduct  of  Callieres  with  the  sister  of  the 
Superior  of  the  Recollets.  Callieres  being  a  high-spirited 
man  brought  the  matter  before  the  Sovereign  Council.  On 
October  31,  he  presented  a  petition  begging  to  be  allowed  to 
have  cited  before  the  court  the  Bishop  and  the  ecclesiastics 
who  had  published  the  mandate  and  monitories.  He  de- 
manded that  these  defamatory  acts  should  be  declared  null 
and  that  the  Bishop  and  ecclesiastics  should  be  held  to  make 
reparation  to  him.  The  petition  was  referred  to  the  Bishop 
for  his  answer,  to  be  given  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Council. 
The  Bishop  attempted  no  defence  but  limited  himself  to  a 
review  of  the  violent  measures  taken  by  Callieres.  He  was 
astonished,  he  said,  that  M.  de  Callieres'  friends  the  Recollets 
should  have  given  him  the  originals  of  the  mandate  and  third 
monitory;  that  M.  de  Callieres  should  have  answered  with  a 
libel,  full  of  outrages,  promulgated  to  roll  of  drums  at  the 
church  portal  during  divine  service  and  at  various  public  places 
in  the  city;  that  he  had  constituted  himself  judge  of  the  ec- 
269]  269 


270  APPENDIX  C  [270 

clesiastical  quarrel  and  had  decided  in  favor  of  the  Recollets. 
On  December  13,  the  Council  voted  to  suspend  action  until 
the  King  should  express  himself  upon  the  matter.  This  tribunal 
had  lost  jurisdiction  over  Mareuil  because  it  would  not  allow 
the  Bishop's  conduct  to  be  questioned,  it  now  gave  up  juris- 
diction of  this  cause  for  the  same  reason.1 

Upon  the  same  day  the  same  course  was  pursued  in  a  similar 
cause.  The  act  of  aggression  complained  of  in  this  case  was 
not  performed  by  the  Bishop  in  person  but  by  his  agents. 
The  parish  priests  of  Batiscan  and  Champlain,  in  accordance 
with  a  mandate  of  Bishop  St.  Vallier,  interdicted  the  Sieur 
Desjordy,  half-pay  captain,  and  the  wife  of  one  M.  Desbrieux 
from  entering  the  churches  in  those  places,  on  the  ground 
of  adultery  and  scandalous  conduct.  In  March  1694  Desjordy 
petitioned  the  Council  to  make  Bishop  and  priests  show  just 
cause  for  their  accusations.  The  Attorney-General  did  not 
act  vigorously.  The  parish  priests,  secure  in  the  protection 
of  the  Bishop,  did  not  appear.  On  December  13,  the  Council 
voted  to  suspend  judgment  until  the  arrival  of  the  vessels  the 
next  year.2  Bishop  St.  Vallier  was  advised  by  his  Arch- 
bishop to  come  to  Paris  at  once  to  influence  in  his  favor  the 
settlement  of  all  these  disputes  in  which  he  was  involved. 
Thus  the  Council  awaited  the  settlement  by  other  institutions 
of  all  the  embarrassing  disputes,  in  which  the  ecclesiastical 
power  had  become  involved. 

1  Jugements  et  Delib.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  960-962. 
9  Ibid.,  pp.  957-960. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  UNPUBLISHED  MATERIAL 

(1)  In    the   small   archives    room   of   the   Legislative   Building    at 
Quebec,  there  are  seventy  volumes  of  Jugements  et  Deliberations  du 
Conseil  Superieur,  which  contain  the  records  of  civil  and  criminal  cases. 
Each  volume  contains  from  140  to  185  pages  and  is  prefaced  by  the 
announcement   that   the   register   was   initialed   by   the    Intendant    of 
justice,  police  and  finance  in  New  France,  and  was  used  to  register 
decrees  which  might  be  rendered  by  the  Superior  Council  of  the  country 
sitting  in  that  city,  done  at  Quebec  on  such  a  day  of  such  a  year.    To 
each  the  Intendant's  signature  was  affixed. 

(2)  A  second  series  A  to  K,  volumes  i  to  xi,  entitled  Registre  des 
Insinuations  du  Conseil  Superier  depuis  1663-1683,  etc.,  contains  all  the 
documents    registered   by   the    Council.    These   volumes    are   indexed 
chronologically. 

(3)  Much  more  available  because  copied  in  a  fair  hand  are  the  fol- 
lowing series  of  documents,  copied  for  the  most  part  in  France  and 
installed  in  the  manuscript  room  of  the  archives  building  in  Ottawa. 
Les  Archives  des  Colonies,  series  B,  as  described  by  Mr.  Parker,  con- 
sists "  of  registers  or  letter-books  in  which  were  copied  despatches, 
memoranda  and  other  papers  sent  by  the  King  and  the  minister  to 
officials,  ecclesiastics,  and  private  persons  in  the  colonies,  and  to  others 
interested  in  the  possessions  of  France  beyond  the  seas.    While  orders 
of  the  King  (ordres  du  roi)  and  despatches  of  his  minister  form  the 
core  of  the  series,  the  amount  of  miscellaneous  correspondence  and 
papers  is  very  large.    The  series  is  calendared  as   follows :   volumes 
i-xlii  in  Richard's  Supplement  to  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for 
1899,  pp.  245-548;  42-74  in  the  Report  for  1904,  Appendix  K;  75-189 
in  the  Report  for  1905,  vol.  i,  part  vi."    Mr.  Richard  did  not  calendar 
some  documents  that  the  series  contains.    The  abstracts  he  does  give 
however  may  be  trusted  for  accuracy. 

(4)  The  Correspondance  Generate,  or  C  xi  series,  in  the  Canadian 
Archives  is  very  valuable.    Most  of  the  volumes  are  indexed,  so  that 
any  document  is  quickly  available.    The  following  calendars  are  not 
sufficiently  detailed  to  give  much  aid  to  the  student:  vols.  i-xxx  in  an 
appendix  to  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for  1885,  pp.  xxix-lxxix; 
vols.  xxxi-lxxv  in  an  appendix  to  the  Report  for  1886,  pp.  xxxix-cl; 
vols.  Ixxvi-cxxii  in  an  appendix  to  the  'Report  for  1887,  pp.  cxl-ccxxxvi. 

271]  271 


272  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [272 

Helpful  abstracts  of  the  Raudot-Pontchartrain  correspondence  however 
may  be  found  in  Richard's  Supplement  to  the  Report  on  Canadian 
Archives  for  1899,  pp.  201-230. 

(5)  A  still  more  valuable  mass  of  documents  is  a  collection  made 
by  Moreau  de  St.Mery  (1750-1819),  the  statesman,  administrator,  and 
historian.    Although  many  of  the  originals  may  be  found  in  series  C  xi 
and   series   B,  this  collection  is  the  only  source  of  information   for 
phases  of  certain  important  trials  and  constitutional  struggles.    Trust- 
worthy abstracts  of  vols.  ii-xvi  may  be  found  in  Richard's  Supplement 
to  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives  for  1899,  pp.  30-91.    For  less  inter- 
esting abstracts  of  later  volumes,  see  the  Report  on  Canadian  Archives 
for  1905,  vol.  i,  pt.  vi,  pp.  447-505.    Only  a  few  of  the  later  volumes 
have  been  copied  however. 

(6)  Manuscript  copies  of  works  written  during  the  eighteenth  century 
by  "  M.  Petit,  depute  des  conseils  superieurs  des  colonies  f  rangaises " 
may  be  classed  as  source  material.    The  most  important  is  a  copy  of 
Le  Droit  Public  ou  Gouvernement  des  colonies  frangaises  d'apres  les 
lois  faites  pour  ces  pays,  2  vols.,  published  by  Delalain  in  Paris  in  1771. 
Of  the  greatest  use  is  his  Memoires  sur  I' administration  des  colonies 
•franqaiscs  en  Amcrique  et  projets  de  legislation  pour  lesdites  colonies, 
in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Fond  Frangois,  12081,  fair  copy  in  the 
Dominion  Archives. 

II.  ALPHABETICAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  PUBLISHED  SOURCES  AND  SECONDARY 

WORKS 

Brymner,  D.    Reports  on  Canadian  Archives,  78  vols.,  Ottawa,  1872- 

1903. 
Casgrain,  H.  R.     Une  Paroisse  Canadienne  au  XVIIe  Siecle,  Quebec, 

1880. 
Chapais,   T.    Jean   Talon,  Intendant  de  la  Nouvelle-France,   Quebec, 

1004.    Treats  the  administration  of  the  colony  at  some  length. 
Charlevoix,  F.  X.    Histoire  ft  Description  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  ed. 

by  J.  G.  Shea,  6  vols.,  New  York,  1866-72. 
Clement,   P.    Lettres,  Instructions,  et  Memoires  de  Colbert,   ^  vols., 

Paris,  1861-70. 

Collection  de  Manuscrits  contenant  Lettres,  Memoires  et  autres  Docu- 
ments Historiques  re  atifs  d  I' Histoire  de  la  Nouvelle-France,  re- 

cueillis   aux   archives   de   la   Province    de    Quebec,    ou    copies   a 

I'etranger,  4  vols.,  Quebec,  1883-85. 
Cheruel,  Dictionnaire  historique  des  Institutions,  Moeurs  et  Coutumes 

de  la  France;  2  vols.,  6th  ed.,  Paris,  1884. 
Cugnet,  F.  j.    Digeste  des  Edits,  Declarations,  etc.  and,  in  the  same 

volume,  "  Traite  de  la  Police,"  Quebec,  1775. 
Desmaze,  Charles  Adrien.    Le  Parlement  de  Paris:  son  organisation, 


273]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  273 

.  .  avec  unc  notice  sur  Ics  autres  parleinents  de  France  (1334- 
1860),  Paris,  1860. 

Doughty,  A.  G.   Reports  on  Canadian  Archives,  Ottawa,  1904-1914. 

Douglas,  J.    Quebec  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Cleveland,   1905. 

Doutre,  J.  and  Lareau,  E.  Histoirc  Gcnerale  du  Droit  Civil  Canadien, 
Montreal,  1872. 

Edits,  Ordonnances  Royaujc,  Declarations,  et  Arrets  de  Conseil  d'Etal 
du  Roi  fonccrnant  le  Canada.  2  vols.,  Quebec,  1803-1806.  New 
edition  enlarged  and  improved,  3  vols.,  Quebec,  1854-56.  A  very 
good  collection  although  the  old  French  spelling  is  not  retained. 

Faillon,  M.  E.  Histoire  de  la  Colonie  Frangaise  en  Canada,  3  vols., 
Ville-Marie,  1865-66. 

Ferland,  J.  B.  A.     Cours  d'Histoire  du  Canada,  2  vols.,  Quebec,  1861-65. 

Garneau,  F.  X.    Histoire  du  Canada,  4  vols.,  Montreal,  1882-83. 

Gaspe,  P.  R.  de.    Les  Anciens  Canadiens,  Quebec,  1863. 

Gerin.  "  Le  Gentilhomme  Frangais,"  in  Proceedings  of  the  Royal 
Society  of  Canada,  series  ii,  vol.  ii,  pp.  79-80. 

Gosselin,  A.  "  Un  Episode  de  1'Histoire  du  Theatre  au  Canada,"  in 
the  same  series,  vol.  iv. 

Gosselin,  A.  Vie  de  Mgr.  de  Laval,  premier  Eveque  de  Quebec  et 
Apotre  du  Canada,  2  vols..  Quebec,  1890. 

Harrisse,  H.  Notes  pour  servir  a  I'Histoirc  .  .  .  de  la  Nouvelle- 
France,  Paris,  1872. 

Isambert,  F.  A.  Recueil  General  des  Anciennes  Lois  Frangaises  depuis 
Van  420  jusqu'a  la  Revolution  de  1789,  30  vols.,  Paris,  1822-33. 

Journal  des  Jcsuites,  2  vols.  supplemented  by  "  Extraits  des  Journaux 
des  Jesuites  "  from  1710-1759  in  Canadian  Missions,  Parkman  Col- 
lection, Harvard  Library. 

Juchereau,  Soeur.    Histoire  de  I'Hdtel-Dieu. 

Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Souvcraiti  de  la  Nouvelle- 
France,  6  vols.,  Quebec,  1885-91.  In  vol.  v  the  title  is  changed  to 
Jugements  et  Deliberations  du  Conseil  Supcricur  dc  Quebec. 

Kalm,  P.  Travels  into  North  America,  translations,  2  vols.,  London, 
1772.  By  a  Swede  who  visited  America  in  1749-50. 

Kingsford,  W.    History  of  Canada,  10  vols.,  Toronto,  1887-98. 

La  Hontan,  Baron  de.  Nouvcaux  Voyages,  2  vols.,  The  Hague,  1705, 
and  many  subsequent  editions.  Sec  also  Thwaites,  R.  G.,  for  well- 
Englished  version. 

Lareau,  E.  Histoire  du  Droit  Canadien  depuis  Ics  Origincs  de  la 
Colonie  jusqu'a  nos  jours,  2  vols.,  Montreal,  1888-89. 

La  Tour,  Abbe  de.    Memoire  de  la  Vie  de  M.  de  Laval. 

Lorin,  H.  Lc  Conite  dc  Frontenac,  Paris.  1895.  A  good  and  scholarly 
work. 

Luchaire,  A.    Manuel  des  Institutions  Francoises,  Paris,  1892. 


274  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [274 

Mandements,  Letires  Pastorales,  et  Circulaires  des  Eveques  de  Quebec, 

ed.  by  H.  Tetu  and  C.  O.  Gaynon,  6  vols.,  Quebec,  1887-90. 
Margry,  P.    Relations  et  Memoires  inedits,  pour  servir  a  I'Histoire  de 

la  France  dans  les  Pays  d'Outre  Mer,  tires  des  archives  du  Min- 

istcre  le  la  Marine  et  des  Colonies,  Paris,  1865.     Of  little  use  to  the 

constitutional  historian. 

Marie  de  1'Incarnation,  Mere.    Lettres  Historiques,  Paris,  1857. 
Moroni.     Dizionario     di    erudizione     storico-ecclesiastica,     103     vols., 

Venice,  1840-61. 

Munro,  W.  B.     The  Seigniorial  System  in  Canada,  New  York,  1907. 
Munro,  W.  B.    "  The  Office  of  Intendant  in  New  France,"  American 

Historical  Review,  October,  1906,  pp.  15-38. 
New  York.    Documents  relating  to  the  Colonial  History  of  New  York, 

ed.   by   O'Callaghan    and   Fernow,    15   vols.,    New   York,    1853-83. 

Vol.  IX  contains  documents  collected  in  France. 
Parkman,  F.    Count  Frontenac  and  New  France  under  Louis  XIV, 

Boston,  1877. 

Parkman,  F.     The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  2  vols.,  Boston,  1874. 
Parkman,  F.    A  Half-Century  of  Conflict,  2  vols.,  Boston,  1892. 
Parkman,  F.    Montcalm  and  Wolfe,  2  vols.,  Boston,  1884. 
Roy,  J.  E.    "  Les  Intendants  de  la  Nouvelle-France,"  in  Proceedings 

of  the  Royal  Society  of  Canada,  1903. 
Royal  Society  of  Canada.    Proceedings,  First  Series,  n  vols.,  Ottawa, 

1882-94.     Second  Series,  19  vols.,  Ottawa,  1895-1914. 
Shortt,  A.  and  Doughty,  A.  G.     Canada  and  its  Provinces,  14  vols., 

Ottawa,  1913. 
Suite,  B.    "  L'Ancienne  Noblesse  du  Canada,"  in  Revue  Canadienne, 

May-September  1885,  pp.  298-556  passim. 
Tanguay,    C.     Dictionnaire    Genealogique   des   Families   Canadiennes, 

depuis   la   fondation  de   la   Colonie   jusqu'a   nos   jours,    7   vols., 

Montreal,  1871-90. 
Thwaites,   R.   G.   ed.    Lahontan's  New   Voyages   to   North  America, 

2  vols.,  Chicago,  1905. 
Weir,    R.    S.     The   Administration    of   the   Old   Regime   in    Canada, 

Montreal,  1897. 


Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public  Law 

edited  by  the 

Faculty  of  Political  Science  of  Columbia  University 

VOLUME  I,  1891-92.    2nd  Ed.,  1897.    396  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem.    A  Study  in  Statistics. 

My  WALTER  F.  WILLCOX,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 

8.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  in  the  United  States,  from  Colonial 

Times  to  the  McKInley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  JOHN  DEAN  Goss,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  GEORGE  ASHTON  BLACK,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  H.  J.  DOUGLAS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  II,  1892-93.    (See  note  on  page  4.) 

1.  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village.   By  ISAAC  A.  HouRwicH.Ph.D.  (Out  of  print.) 

2.  Bankruptcy.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  SAMUEL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  Jr.,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

3.  Special  Assessments :  A  Stndy  in  Municipal. Finance. 

By  VICTOR  ROSEWATBR,  Ph.D.     Second  Edition,  1898.     Price,  $1.00 

VOLUME  III,  1893.    465pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  *  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies. 

By  CORTLAND  F.  BISHOP,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

9.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  GEORGE  L.  BEER,  A.M.     (j\~o£  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  IV,  1893-94.    438  pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  Financial  History  of  Virginia.  By  WILLIAM  Z.  RIPLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

2.  *  The  Inheritance  Tax.  By  MAX  WEST,  Ph.D.    Second  Edition,  1908.    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont.    By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    (Not  sold  separately.) 

VOLUME  V,  1895-96.    498  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Double  Taxation  In  the  United  States.          By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

2.  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  WILLIAM  BONDY,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.  Price,  fx.oo. 

3.  Municipal  Government  in  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  DELOS  F.  WILCOX,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  VL,  1896.    601  pp.   Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  Paper  covers,  $4.00. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  In  Pennsylvania. 

By  WILLIAM  ROBERT  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  VII,  1896.    512  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  to  Commonwealth   Govern- 

ment in  Massachusetts.  By  HARRY  A.  CUSHING,  Ph.D.    Price,  fz.oo. 

2.  'Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United  States. 

By  HENRY  CROSBT  EMERY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  VIII,  1896-98.    551pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Struggle  between  President  Johnson  and   Congress  over  Recon- 
struction. By  CHARLES  ERNEST  CHADSEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  ji.oo 
8.  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educational  Administration. 

By  WILLIAM  CLARENCE  WEBSTER,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents. 
8.  The  Abolition  of  Privateering  and  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

By  FRANCIS  R.  STARK,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

4.  Public  Administration  In  Massachusetts.     The  Relation  of  Central  to 

Local  Activity.  "    By  ROBERT  HARVBY  WHITTBN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  IX,  1897-98.    617  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  *  English  Local  Government  of  To-day.    A  Stndy  of  the  Relations  of  Cen- 

tral and  Local  Government.  By  MILO  ROY  MALTBIB,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

2.  German  "Wage  Theories.    A  History  of  their  Development. 

By  JAMES  WT  CROOK,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 
8.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State. 

By  JOHN  ARCHIBALD  FAUUJB,  Ph.D.    Price.  t*,v. 


VOLUME  X,  1898-99.    500  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  Sympathetic  Strikes  and  Sympathetic  Lockouts. 

By  FRED  S.  HALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
2  *  Rhode  Island  and  the  Formation  of  the  Union. 

By  FRANK  GREENE  BATES,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

8.  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  In  the  American  Common- 
wealths. By  CLEMKNT  MOORE  LACEY  SITES,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XI,  1899.    495  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00;  paper  covers,  $3.50. 

The  Growth  of  Cities.  By  ABNA  FERRIN  WEBER,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XII,  1899-1900.    586  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  History  and  Functions  of  Central  Labor  Unions. 

By  WILLIAM  MAXWELL  BURKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

2.  Colonial  Immigration  Laws.  By  EDWARD  EMBERSON  PROPER,  A.M.     Price,  75  cents. 

3.  History  of  Military  Pension  Legislation  In  the  United  States. 

By  WILLIAM  HENRY  GLASSON,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oo. 

4.  History  of  the  Theory  of  Sovereignty  since  Rousseau. 

By  CHARLES  E.  MERRIAM,  Jr.,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XIII,  1901.    570  pages.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Legal  Property  Relations  of  Married  Parties. 

By  ISIDOR  LOEB,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  Political  Nativism  In  New  York  State.         By  Louis  Dow  Scisco,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

3.  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia.  By  EDWIN  C.  WOOLLEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XIV,  1901-1902.    576  pages.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Loyalism  in  New  York  during  the  American  Revolution. 

By  ALEXANDER  CLARENCE  FLICK,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

2.  The  Economic  Theory  of  Risk  and  Insurance. 

By  ALLAN  H.  WILLKTT,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Eastern  Question :  A  Study  in  Diplomacy. 

By  STEPHEN  P.  H.  DUGGAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XV,  1902.    427  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50 ;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

Crime  in  Its  Relations  to  Social  Progress.  By  ARTHUR  CLEVELAND  HALL,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XVI,  1902-1903.    547  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Past  and  Present  of  Commerce  In  Japan. 

By  YBTARO  KINOSITA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

2.  The  Employment  of  "Women  in  the  Clothing:  Trade. 

By  MABEL  HURD  WILLET,  Ph.D      Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio. 

By  SAMUEL  P.  ORTH,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XVII,  1903.    635pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  *  Centralizing  Tendencies  In  the  Administration  of  Indiana. 

By  WILLIAM  A.  RAWLES,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

2.  Principles  of  Justice  in  Taxation.  By  STEPHEN  F.  WESTON,  Ph.D.    Pric«,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XVIII,  1903.    753pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  The  Administration  of  Iowa.  By  HAROLD  MARTIN  BOWMAN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  Turgot  and  the  Six  Edicts.  By  EGBERT  P.  SHEPHERD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  Hanover  and  Prussia  1795-18O3.  By  GUY  STANTON  FORD,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XIX,  1903-1905.    588  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Josiah  Tucker,  Economist.  By  WALTER  ERNEST  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

2.  History  and  Criticism  of  the  Labor  Theory  of  Value  In  English  Political 

Economy.  By  ALBERT  C.  WHITAKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

3.  Trade  Unions  and  the  Law  In  New  York. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D.     Price,  Ji.oo. 

VOLUME  XX,  1904.    514pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  The  Office  of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England. 

By  CHARLES  AUSTIN  BEARD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

«.  A  History  of  Military  Government  In  Newly  Acquired  Territory  of  the 
United  States.  By  DAVID  Y.  THOMAS,  Ph.  D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXI,  1904.    746pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  'Treaties,  their  Making  and  Enforcement. 

By  SAMUEL  B.  CRANDALL,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Sociology  of  a  New  York  City  Block. 

By  THOMAS  JESSE  JONES,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

8.  Pre-Malthnslan  Doctrines  of  Population. 

By  CHARLES  E.  STANGBLAND,  Ph.D.     Price,  12.50. 


VOLUME  XXII,  1905.    520  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

The  Historical  Development  of  the  Poor  Law  of  Connecticut. 

By  EDWARD  W.  CAPBN,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXIII,  1905.    594pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Economics  of  Land  Tenure  In  Georgia. 

By  ENOCH  MARVIN  BANKS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $i.oc. 

2.  Mistake  In  Contract.    A  Study  In  Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

By  EDWIN  C.  McKHAG,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

3.  Combination  In  the  Mining  Industry.         By  HENRY  R.  MUSSKY,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

4.  The  English  Craft  Guilds  and  the  Government. 

By  STELLA  KRAMER,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  i.oo. 

VOLUME  XXIV,  1905.    521  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Place  of  Magic  In  the  Intellectual  History  of  Europe. 

By  LYNN  THORNDIKB,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

2.  The  Ecclesiastical  Edicts  of  the  Theodoslan  Code. 

By  WILLIAM  K.  BOYD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

3.  *  The  International  Position  of  Japan  as  a  Great  Power. 

By  SEIJI  G.  HISHIDA,  Ph.D.    Price,  (2.00. 

VOLUME  XXV,  1906-07.    600pp.    (Sold  only  in  Sets.) 

1.  *  Municipal  Control  of  Public  Utilities.    By  O.  L.  POND,  Ph.D.  (Not  sold  separately .} 

2.  The  Budget  In  the  American  Commonwealths. 

By  EUGBNK  E.  AGGER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Finances  of  Cleveland.  By  CHABLKS  C.  WILLIAMSON,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XXVI,  1907.    559  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Trade  and  Currency  In  Early  Oregon.         By  JAMES  H.  GILBERT,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 

2.  Li.ther's  Table  Talk.  By  PRESERVED  SMITH,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji.oo. 

3.  The  Tobacco  Industry  In  the  United  States. 

By  MEYER  JACOBSTKIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50 

4.  Social  Democracy  and  Population.  By  ALVAN  A,  TENNEY,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  XXVII,  1907.    578  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  The  Economic  Policy  of  Robert  Walpole.    By  NORRISA.  BRISCO,  Ph.D.  Price,  Jr. 30. 

2.  The  United  States  Steel  Corporation.      By  ABRAHAM  BERGLUND,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Taxation  of  Corporations  In  Massachusetts. 

By  HARRY  G.  FRIEDMAN,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXVIII,  1907.    564  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  DeWltt  Clinton  and  the  Origin  of  the  Spoils  System  In  New  York. 

By  HOWARD  LEB  McBAiN,  Ph.  L>.    Price,  $1.50 

2.  The  Development  of  the  Legislature  of  Colonial  Virginia. 

By  ELMER  I.  MILLER,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  The  Distribution  of  Ownership.    By  JOSEPH  HARDING  UNDERWOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,|i.5o. 

VOLUME  XXIX,  1908.    703  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  Early  New  England  Towns.  By  ANNE  BUSH  MACLEAR,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

3.  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  WILLIAM  H.  FRY,  Ph.D.    Price, $3.00. 

VOLUME  XXX,  1908.    712  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Province  of  New  Jersey,  1664—1738.  By  EDWIN  P.  TANNER,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXI,  1908.    575  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  Private  Freight  Cars  and  American  Railroads. 

By  L.  D.  H.  WELD,  Ph.D.    Price,  Ji. 50. 

2.  Ohio  before  185O.  By  ROBERT  E.  CHADDOCK,  Ph.D.    Price, $1.50 

3.  Consanguineous  Marriages  In  the  American  Population. 

By  GEORGE  B.  Louis  AKNER,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents, 

4.  Adolphe  Qnetelet  as  Statistician.  By  FRANK  H.  HANKINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  ji. 35. 

VOLUME  XXXII,  1908.    705  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper  covers,  $4.00. 

The  Enforcement  of  the  Statutes  of  Laborers.         By  BERTHA  HAVEN  PUTNAM,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XXXIII,  1908-1909.    635  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  Factory  Legislation  in  Maine.  By  E.  STAGG  WHITIN,  A.B.    Price,  £x.oo. 

2.  *  Psychological  Interpretations  of  Society, 

By  MICHABL  M.  DAVIS,  JR.,  Ph  D.     Price,  Ja.oo. 

3.  *  An  Introduction  to  the  Sources  relating  to  the  Germanic  Invasions. 

By  CARLTON  HUNTLBY  HAYES,  Pn.D.     Price,  |i.fo 


VOLUME  XXXTV,  1909.    628  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [89]  Transportation  and  Industrial  Development  In  the  Middle  West. 

By  WILLIAM  F.  GEPHART,  Ph.D.     Price,  {2.0*. 
i.  [9O]  Social  Reform  and  the  Reformation. 

By  JACOB  SALWYN  SCHAPIHO,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

>.  [91]  Responsibility  for  Crime.  By  PHILIP  A.  PARSONS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXV,  1909.    568  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [98]  The  Conflict  over  the  Judicial  Powers  In  the  United  States  to  187O. 

By  CHARLES  GROVE  HAINES,  Ph.D.     Price, $1.50. 
*.  [93]  A  Stndy  of  the  Population  of  Manhattan vllle. 

By  HOWARD  BROWN  WOOLSTON,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.25. 
8.  [94]  *  Divorce:  A  Stndy  In  Social  Causation. 

By  JAMBS  P.  LICHTBNBBRGBR,  Ph.D.    Price,  £1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVI,  1910.    542  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [95] 'Reconstruction  In  Texas.     By  CHARLES  WILLIAM  RAMSDBLL,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

8.  [9«1  *  The  Transition  In  Virginia  from  Colony  to  Commonwealth. 

By  CHARLES  RAMSDELL  LINGLBY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  XXXVTI,  1910.    606  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [97]  Standards  of  Reasonableness  In  Local  Freight  Discriminations. 

By  JOHN  MAURICE  CLARK,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.25. 

9.  [98]  Legal  Development  In  Colonial  Massachusetts. 

By  CHARLES  J.  HILKKY,  Ph.D.     Price,  11.25. 
3.  [99]  *  Social  and  Mental  Traits  of  the  Negro. 

By  HOWARD  W.  ODUM,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  XXXVIH,  1910.    463  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [1OO]  The  Public  Domain  and  Democracy. 

By  ROBERT  TUDOR  HILL,  Ph.D.     Price,  fm.oo. 
8.  [1O1]  Organlsmlc  Theories  of  the  State. 

By  FRANCIS  W.  COKER,  Ph.D.    Price,  fi.fo. 

VOLUME  XXXIX,  1910-1911.    651  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O3]  The  Making  of  the  Balkan  States. 

By  WILLIAM  SMITH  MURRAY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

8.  [1O31  Political  History  of  New  York  State  during  the  Period  of  the  Civil 
War.  By  SIDNEY  DAVID  BRUMMBR,  Ph.  D.    Price,  3.00. 

VOLUME  XL,  1911.    633  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [1O4]  A  Survey  of  Constitutional  Development  In  China. 

By  HAWKLING  L.  YEN,  Ph  D.     Price,  *i.oo. 
«.  [1O5]  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period. 

By  GEORGE  H.  PORTER,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

8.  [1O6]  The  Territorial  Baslsof  Government  under  the  State  Constitutions. 

By  ALFRED  ZANTZINGER  REED,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.75. 

VOLUME  XLI,  1911.    514  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50;  paper  covers,  $3.00. 

[1O7]  New  Jersey  as  a  Royal  Province.  By  EDGAR  JACOB  FISHER,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  XLII,  1911.    400pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.00;  paper  covers,  $2.50. 

[1O8]  Attitude  of  American  Courts  In  Labor  Cases. 

By  GEORGE  GORHAM  GROAT,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLin,  1911.    633pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 


1.  [1O9]  *Indnstrlal  Causes  of  Congestion  of  Population  In  New  York  City. 

By  EDWARD  EWING  PRATT,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 
*.  [HO]  Education  anA  the  Mores.  By  F.  STUART  CHAPIN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

8.  L111J  The  British  Consuls  In  the  Confederacy. 

By  MILLEDGB  L.  BONHAM,  JR.,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2.0*. 

VOLUMES  XLIV  and  XLV,  1911.    745  pp. 
Price  for  the  two  volumes,  cloth,  $6.00 ;  paper  covers,  $5.00. 

[118  and  113]  The  Economic  Principles  of  Confucius  and  his  School. 

By  CHEN  HUAN-CHANG,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  XLVI,  1911-1912.    623pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [114]  The  Rlcardlan  Socialists.  BY  ESTHER  LOWENTHAL,  Ph.D.    Price.  Ji.oa 

9.  [116]  Ibrahim  Pasha,  Grand  Vizier  of  Suleiman,  the  Magnificent. 

BY  HESTER  DONALDSON  JENKINS,  Ph.D.     Price,  gi.oo. 

3.  [116]  *Syndlcallsm  In  France. 

BY  Louis  LEVINS,  Ph.D.    Second  edition,  1914.    Price,  $1.50. 

4.  [117]    A  Hoo%ler  Village.  BY  NEWELL  LBKOY  SIMS,  Ph.P      Price,  fi.jo. 


VOLUME  XLVII,  1912.    544  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [118]  The  Politics  of  Michigan,  1865-1878, 

BY  HARRIETTS  M.  DILLA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

».  [1 19]  "The  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  and  the  Tariff. 

BY  ROY  G.  BLAKKY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

VOLUME  XLVHI,  1912.    493  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [ISO]  Isldor  of  Seville.  BY  ERNEST  BREH/UT,  Ph.  D.    Price.  fa.oo. 

2.  [181]  Progress  and  Unlformltyln  Child-Labor  Legislation. 

By  WILLIAM  FIELDING  OGBURN,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i  .75 . 

VOLUME  XLIX,  1912.    592  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [128]  British  Radicalism  1791-1797.  BY  WALTER  PHBLPS  HALL.    Price,  $3.00. 

9.  [183]  A  Comparative  Study  of  the  Law  of  Corporations. 

BY  ARTHUR  K.  KUHM,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50 
8.  [184]  *The  Negro  at  Work  In  New  Tork  City. 

BY  GEORGE  E.  HAYNBS.  Ph.D.  Pric«,  $1.25. 

VOLUME  L,  1911.    481  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

i.  [185]  *The  Spirit  of  Chinese  Philanthropy.       BY  YAI  YOB  Tso.  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.00. 
ft.  [186]  *The  Allen  In  China.  BY  Vi.  KYUIN  WELLINGTON  Koo,  Ph.D.    Price,  $2-50. 

VOLUME  LI,  1912.    4to.  Atlas.    Price:  cloth,  $1.50;  paper  covers,  $1.00. 

1.  [187]  The  Sale  of  Liquor  In  the  South. 

BY  LEONARD  S.  BLAXEY,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LII,  1912.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [188]  'Provincial  and  Local  Taxation  In  Canada. 

BY  SOLOMON  VINEBBRG,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  i.jo. 

8.  [189]  *The  Distribution  of  Incomes. 

By  FRANK  HATCH  STRBIGHTOFF,  Ph.D.    Price,  f  1.50. 

8.  [13O]  *The  Finances  of  Vermont.  By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D.    Price,  |i.oo. 

VOLUME  LIII,  1913.    789  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 
[131]  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  In  Florida.        By  W.  W.  DAVIS,  Ph.D. 

VOLUME  LIV,  1913     604pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [138]    *  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Citizens  of  the  United  States. 

By  ARNOLD  JOHNSON  LIEN,  Ph.D.    Price,  75  cents. 

t.  [133]    The  Supreme  Court  and  Unconstitutional  Legislation. 

By  ELAINE  FREE  MOORB,  Ph.D.     Price,  fi.oo. 

3.  [134]  "Indian  Slavery  In  Colonial  Times  within  the  Present  Limits  of  the 
United  States.  By  ALMON  WHEELER  LAUBKR,  Ph.D.     Price, $3.00. 

VOLUME  LV,  1913.    665  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [135]    *A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  Tork. 

By  HOMER  A.  STEBBINS,  Ph.D.    Price,  $4.00. 

8.  [  136]    *The  Early  Persecutions  of  the  Christians. 

By  LEON  H.  CANFIBLD,  Ph.D.     Price,  $i.$°- 


VOLUME  LVI,  1913.    406  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

1.  [137]  Speculation  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange,  19O4-19O7. 

By  ALGERNON  ASHBURNBR  OSBORNE.      Price,  $1.50. 
8.  f  138]  The  Policy  of  the  United  States  towards  Industrial  Monopoly. 

By  OSWALD  WHITMAN  KNAUTH,  Ph.D.     Price   Ja  o. . 

VOLUME  LVII,  1914.    670  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [139]  *The  Civil  Service  of  Great  Britain. 

By  ROBERT  MOSES,  Ph.D.     Price.  82.00. 

2.  [14O]  The  Financial  History  of  New  York  State. 

By  DON  C.  SOWERS.     Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LVIII,  1914.    684  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50;  paper,  $4.00. 

[141]  Reconstruction  In  North  Carolina. 

By  J.  G.  DB  ROULHAC  HAMILTON,  Ph.D 

VOLUME  LIX,  1914.    625  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [148]  The  Development  of  Modern  Turkey  by  means  of  Its  Press. 

By  AHMED  EMIN,  Ph.D.  Price,  ii.oo. 

3.  [143]  The  System  of  Taxation  In  China,  1614-1911. 

By  SHAO-KWAN  CHEN,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.00. 

3.  [1441  The  Currency  Problem  In  China.  By  WEN  PIN  WEI,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.25. 

4.  [146]  *Jewlsh  Immigration  to  the  United  States. 

By  SAMUEL  JOSEPH,  Ph.D.  Price,  $1.50. 

VOLUME  LX,  1914.    516  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [146]  *Constantlne  the  Great  and  Christianity. 

By  CHRISTOPHEK  BUSH  COLHMAN,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.00. 

2.  [147]  The  Establishment   of  Christianity  and   the  Proscription  of  Pa- 

ganism. By  MAUD  ALINE  HUTTMANN,  Ph.D.   Price,  $«.oo. 

VOLUME  LXI,  1914.    496  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [148]  *The  Railway  Conductors:  A  Study  In  Organized  Labor. 

By  EDWIN  CLYDE  ROBBINS.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [149]  *The  Finances  of  the  City  of  New  York. 

By  YIN-CH'U  MA,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.50. 

VOLUME  LXII,  1914.    414  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $3.50. 

[15O]  The  Journal  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Fifteen  on  Reconstruction, 
39th  Congress,  1865— 1867.  By  BENJAMIN  B.  KENDRICK, Ph.D,    Price,  $3.00. 

VOLUME  LXIII,  1915.    561pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [1511  Emlle  Durkheim's  Contributions  to  Sociological  Theory. 

By  CHARLES  ELMER  GEHLKE,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50. 

3.  [153]  The  Nationalization  of  Railways  In  Japan. 

By  I'OSHIHARU  WATARAI,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.25. 
.  [153]  Population:  A  Study  In  Malthuslanlsm. 

By  WARREN  S.  THOMPSON,  Ph.D.    Price  fi. 75. 

VOLUME  LXIV,  1915.    646pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.50. 

1.  [154]  Reconstruction  In  Georgia.         By.  C.  MILDRED  THOMPSON,  Ph.D     Price,  $3.00. 

3.  [155]  The   Review  of  American   Colonial   Legislation   by   the   King   In 

Council.  By  ELMER  BEECHEK  RUSSELL,  Ph.D.     Price,  J  1.75. 

VOLUME  LXV,  1915.    489  pp.    Price,  cloth,  $4.00. 

1.  [156]  *The  Sovereign  Council  of  New  France. 

By  RAYMOND  Du  Bois  CAHALL,  Ph.D.     Price,  $2.25. 
3.  [157]  Scientific  Management.        By  HORACE  BOOKWALTBR  DRURY,  Ph.D.    Price,  $1.75 

VOLUME  LXVI,  1915. 

1.  [158]  The  Recognition  Policy  of  the  United  States. 

By  JULIUS  GOEBEL,  JR.  (In press.) 

2.  [159]  Railway  Problems  in  China.  By  CHIH  Hsu.    (fn  press.) 

3.  [16O]  Mohammedan  Theories  of  Taxation.     By  NICOLAS  P.  AGHNIDES.    (Inpress.) 

The  price  for  each  separate  monograph  is  for  paper-covered  copies;  separate  monographs  marked*,  can 
be  supplied  bound  in  cloth,  for  SOc.  additional.     All  prices  are  net. 


The  set  of  sixty-six  volumes,  covering  monographs  1-160,  is  offered,  bound,  for  $218:  except  that 
Volume  II  can  be  supplied  only  in  part,  and  in  paper  covers,  no.  1  of  that  volume  being  out  of  print. 
Volumes  III,  IV  and  XXV,  can  now  be  supplied  only  in  connection  with  complete  sets. 

For  further  information,  apply  to 

Prof.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Columbia  University, 

or  to  Messrs.  LONGMANS,  GREEN  &  CO.,  New  York. 
London:  P.  S.  KING  &  SON,  Ltd.,  Orchard  House,  Westminster. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY,  LOS  ANGELES 

COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Book  Slip-25m-9,'60(.B2«36s4)4280 


Ubrary 


-  005  667  6463" 


College 
Library 

JL 

w 

cii9s 


X  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL 


A 001  038  243    0 


